they ARE required to disclose it under UIPA.
UIPA has several exclusions, including
"it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or 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.
HRS 338-13. That REQUIRES the HDOH to issue certified copies, the contents of a certificate, or any part thereof to any applicant in accordance with HRS 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. So that means that what is authorized for release to an applicant by 16, 17, and 18 are REQUIRED to be released.
You cite 338-13, -16, -17 and -18. Please note 338-18 (b) which states
The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.and then goes on to list which applicants qualify. So it is quite clear that 338.18 states no information except index data should be released to an unqualified applicant. Just being an applicant doesn't cut it, sorry.
Once again, we seem to be split on which takes precedence - a statute from 1977, subsequently amended and updated, or a 1955 rules document from the HDOH. Certainly HDOH ought to have updated its rules a long time ago. But I chalk this up to bureaucratic snafu and incompetence. It does not surprise me in the least that the HDOH would follow the later statute which forbids disclosure, rather than the older agency rules which do not.
There is not a conflict between HRS 338-18 and the Administrative Rules. HRS 338-18(a) only forbids disclosures that are not already authorized in the HDOH rules.
The rest of 338-18 either deals with physical inspection of the original records themselves, certified copies, or certified verification - none of which apply to non-certified copies.
OIP Opinion letters say that the items which present a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy are, IIRC, the birth date, social security number, and resident address. In my request I specifically mentioned that I recognized that UIPA allows some information to be redacted from that public record because of privacy considerations.
The only item on a non-certified COLB which would qualify as having a privacy interest is the birth date. Which is actually included in birth announcements the HDOH gives the newspapers now, if I’m not mistaken, so that’s goofy. And HRS 338, before UIPA was passed, included name, date of the event, gender, and certificate number as REQUIRED index data that anybody could find out; required disclosures were to be grandfathered in as discloseable once UIPA was passed, as well.
Anyway, after all that, HRS 338-18a only applies to disclosures NOT allowed by law or the Administrative Rules, and HRS 338-18b doesn’t address non-certified copies. So there’s no conflict between HRS 338-18 and the Administrative Rules. HRS 338-13 REQUIRES disclosures to be made to applicants, in compliance with HRS 338-16, 17, and 18. So whatever disclosures are authorized by 338-18, for instance (which defers to the Administrative Rules), are REQUIRED to be disclosed according to 338-13. And they’re also required disclosures under UIPA as well.
When the HDOH mentions HRS 338-18 forbidding disclosures to those without a “direct and tangible interest in the record” they make sure to say that “certified copies” are forbidden. Non-certified copies are not forbidden and in the Administrative Rules non-certified ABBREVIATED certificates are expressly authorized for ANYBODY to receive.
So - as Itamura noted - non-certified abbreviated certificates CAN be disclosed. There is no conflict between HRS 338-18 and the Administrative Rules. And both HRS 338-13 and UIPA would thus REQUIRE non-certified abbreviated certificates to be disclosed to anybody who asks for them.