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.
Actually, 338-18 deals with copies of any sort: ""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."
Once again, we come down to you citing administrative rules from a 1955 document with handwritten notes and cross outs, and me pointing to the 1977 statute which is far more restrictive.