And that's the bureaucratic mess in a nutshell. The old rules are from 1955, have cross outs and handwritten notations. HRS338-18(a) specifically contradicts the "you can have a noncertified copy" of the 1955 rules by mandating what is protected. It forbids anyone "to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health." So the legal question for the lawyers around would be whether "as authorized by this part" supercedes "by rules adopted" in 1955 where they are in contradiction.
It's a good question and one of the many reasons I say they are a bureaucratic mess. Because what's in "this part" clearly forbids release except for index data, and for specified circumstances.
What is the evidence for there being 2 different versions of the 1960-1964 book?