“Docket No. 80-3192 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.SUN SHIP, INC.,Respondent.LODGE 802, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS,Authorized EmployeeRepresentative.OSHRC, Docket No. 80-3192DECISIONBefore:\u00a0 BUCKLEY, Chairman, and CLEARY,Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission under 29 U.S.C.? 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ??651-678 (\”the Act\”).\u00a0 The Commission is an adjudicatory agency, independentof the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(\”OSHA\”).\u00a0 It was established to resolve disputes arising out ofenforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatoryfunctions.\u00a0 See section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c).Sun Ship, Inc., has petitioned for review of a decision by Commission Judge William E.Brennan finding it in willful violation of recordkeeping disclosure requirements at 29C.F.R. ?? 1904.7(a) and (b)(1).[[1]]\u00a0 We conclude the Secretary’s citation isbarred by the six-month limitation on issuance of citations under section 9(c) of the Act,29 U.S.C. ? 658(c).[[2]]At the time of the investigation and citation Sun Ship was engaged in the business of shipbuilding and repair at its principal place of business in Chester, Pennsylvania.\u00a0 OnMarch 7, 1979, a representative of Lodge 802 of the International Brotherhood ofBoilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (\”Lodge 802\”)requested Sun Ship to provide it with Sun Ship’s OSHA form 200 logs and summaries ofoccupational injuries and illnesses (\”logs\”) for 1975 through the date of therequest.\u00a0 The parties stipulated that the logs contained a brief description of eachinjury or illness and\/or diagnosis of medical condition, along with an employee’s name,the parts of the body affected, date of onset of the condition or injury, and in somecases a brief statement of the possible cause of the injury or illness.\u00a0 Sun Shipprovided Lodge 802 with the requested logs, except that the employees’ names were deletedin accordance with Sun Ship’s confidentiality policies.\u00a0 In response to a letter fromLodge 802 dated March 26, 1979, Sun Ship provided the Lodge with its OSHA form 200 log forJanuary-April 1979, with the names deleted.\u00a0 On April 16, in a letter to Lodge 802,Sun Ship’s president explained that Sun Ship had deleted the names because it did not feeljustified in releasing information which could be construed to be private or of a medicalnature with personal identifiers attached.On May 23, 1979, Lodge 802 filed a complaint with OSHA that Sun Ship had failed to provideit with complete logs.\u00a0 On August 17, an OSHA compliance officer visited Sun Ship toinvestigate the complaint.\u00a0 He told Sun Ship that deletion of names from the logs was\”an apparent violation\” and was \”already citable.\”\u00a0 He did notconduct a physical inspection of the Sun Ship facility or records but stated that Sun Shipshould mail to the OSHA area office copies of its logs and OSHA form 101 illness or injuryreports.[[3]]\u00a0 In response to a Sun Ship inquiry, the compliance officer stated thathe could not guarantee that the records would be withheld from Lodge 802 or treated asconfidential.On September 5, 1979, OSHA’s area office received a letter from Sun Ship’s manager ofsafety and health informing it of Sun Ship’s confidentiality policy and requesting that anOSHA official sign a non-disclosure agreement that accompanied the letter before Sun Shipwould provide the records to OSHA.\u00a0 OSHA did not respond to the letter.More than eight months later, on May 19, 1980, the compliance officer and Sun Shipofficials held a meeting to discuss the matter again.\u00a0 The OSHA area director advisedSun Ship before the meeting that he considered it to be a closing conference. \u00a0(Closing conferences are held before the conclusion of inspections under OSHA’s FieldOperations Manual, Ch. III.D.9.)\u00a0 At the meeting the compliance officer statedthat unless Sun Ship turned over the documents that had been requested right away, thecompany would be cited for a willful violation.\u00a0 There was further discussion of theissues and the meeting ended inconclusively as to whether Sun Ship would change itsposition. The next day, May 20, 1980, Sun Ship was issued a citation alleging willfulviolations of 29 C.F.R. ? 1904.7(a) and (b)(1).Judge Brennan affirmed the citation and assessed a penalty of $5,000 for each violation.\u00a0 The judge held that the citation was timely issued under section 9(c) of the Actbecause the OSHA area director did not finalize his belief that Sun Ship had committed aviolation until the results of the compliance officer’s meeting of May 19, 1980, wereconveyed to him.\u00a0 He then authorized the citation and it was issued the next day.\u00a0Alternatively, the judge concluded that the citation was issued within the six-monthperiod because Sun Ship’s refusals to supply the complete records requested by OSHAconstituted a continuing violation that never ceased before the citation was issued.We must decide whether the citation is time-barred by the six-month limitation periodspecified in section 9(c) of the Act.\u00a0 We disagree with the judge’s ruling that thesix-month period permitted for citation began only when the OSHA area director finalizedhis belief that a violation had occurred.\u00a0 As Sun Ship notes, that theory couldextend the limitations period indefinitely after a violation occurs, even where, as here,OSHA has been fully aware of the facts for at least eight months.\u00a0 Under the terms ofsection 9(c), the six-month period begins to run \”following the occurrence of aviolation,\” not when OSHA decides that its investigation is complete and that acitation should issue.We also disagree with the judge’s ruling that the alleged violations were continuing innature.\u00a0 The cited standards require the employer to provide certain records\”upon request\” to various persons including the Secretary’s representatives andemployee representatives.\u00a0 A violation occurs when there is a failure to refusal tocomply with a lawful request.\u00a0 In this case the failure or refusal giving rise to thealleged violations occurred at specific times:\u00a0 when Sun Ship refused to discloseemployee names and to produce records in August and September of 1979.\u00a0 Indeed, theSecretary alleges in the citation that the violations occurred on or about the date of theinspection, August 17, 1979, almost nine months before the citation.\u00a0 Thus, the May20, 1980, citation was issued more than six months after each alleged violation occurred.The Commission has held that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until OSHAdiscovers or reasonably should have discovered a violation.\u00a0 In Yelvington WeldingService, 78 OSAHRC 84\/D6, 6 BNA OSHC 2013, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 23,092 (No. 15958, 1978),the Commission dealt with an employer’s failure to notify OSHA of an employment accidentfatal to one of its employees.\u00a0 Such a report is required within 48 hours of theaccident under 29 C.F.R. ? 1904.8.\u00a0 OSHA learned of the accident more than sixmonths later and promptly issued a citation for the employer’s failure to report theaccident and for a violation relating to the unreported accident.\u00a0 The Commissionrejected the employer’s argument that the action was barred by the six-month limitationbecause, having failed to report the accident and thereby having prevented OSHA fromlearning of the accident, the employer could not avail itself of the limitation period.Here, Sun Ship did not conceal the facts alleged to constitute a violation.\u00a0 TheSecretary had a full opportunity to learn the facts, and did learn them in time to issue acitation within six months of each alleged violation.\u00a0 Contrary to the judge’sruling, the citation here is untimely under Yelvington because the citation periodbegan to run when the Secretary became aware of the facts constituting the allegedviolations.The meeting between Sun Ship and OSHA on May 19, 1980, does not change the result. \u00a0OSHA considered the May 1980 meeting to be a closing conference to discuss the previousrefusals.\u00a0 OSHA may not revive a lapsed cause of action under the cited standardsmerely by delaying the closing conference and having the respondent reaffirm its refusalto release the records.\u00a0 Moreover, as the judge found, the results of the meetingwere inconclusive as to whether Sun Ship would change its previous position ondisclosure.\u00a0 Thus, there is no basis on which to conclude that a separate request wasmade and refused.\u00a0 See Local Lodge No. 1424, IAM v. NLRB, 362U.S. 411, 416-17 (1960) (party may not revive time-barred unfair labor practice charge byreliance on more recent conduct that does not by itself constitute an unfair laborpractice).The citation and proposed penalties therefore are vacated.[[4]]FOR THE COMMISSIONRAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED:\u00a0 JAN 28 1985FOOTNOTES: [[1]] ? 1904.7 Access to records.(a) Each employer shall provide, upon request,records provided for in ?? 1904.2, 1904.4, and 1904.5, for inspection and copying by anyrepresentative of the Secretary of Labor for the purpose of carrying out the provisions ofthe act, and by representatives of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare duringany investigation under section 20(b) of the act, or by any representative of a Stateaccorded jurisdiction for occupational safety and health inspections or for statisticalcompilation under sections 18 and 24 of the act.(b)(1) The log and summary of all recordable occupational injuries and illnesses (OSHA No.200) (the log) provided for in ? 1904.2 shall, upon request, be made available by theemployer to any employee, former employee, and to their representatives for examinationand copying in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times.\u00a0 The employee, formeremployee, and their representatives shall have access to the log for establishment inwhich the employee is or has been employed.[[2]] \”No citation may be issued under this section after the expiration of sixmonths following the occurrence of any violation.\”[[3]] The form 101 report is entitled \”Supplementary Record of Occupational Injuriesand Illnesses\” and calls for a somewhat more detailed account of each accident andinjury or illness than do form 200 logs.[[4]] Commissioner Cleary notes that the holding in this case pertains only to thoserecords which were the subject of the 1979 requests by Lodge 802.”