Orange Vest and the regs.

Yes, a price indeed. Well I think it's time to start saving up for one of those babies 

In most cases, manufacturers aren't actually sending their products into "x" for certification, what they do is build to a submitted spec, which is in turn
provided to the certifying body and they provide the authorization to include the respective tags.  Practical inspections and random sampling are
dependent on the risk tolerance of the certifying body.

Just about any garment could be made to physically comply with ANSI II, it's not really that big a deal, but absent the little tag, it's a coffee house argument
as to whether physical / actual compliance is enough vs. a 3rd party saying the garment's specification is compliant (i.e. little tag).

Then there's the group who believe "vest" somehow equals "armband", etc.  You can grind beans all day on orange vs. yellow, ANSI, etc.,
but these members don't want to cover their $500 tac rig with a $12 vest, and simply ignore the regs altogether.

Absent two sentences from NHQ which specifies the issue, or wing supplements which do, this will be added to the list of other arguments we have here all the time.

In most cases, manufacturers aren't actually sending their products into "x" for certification, what they do is build to a submitted spec, which is in turn
provided to the certifying body and they provide the authorization to include the respective tags.  Practical inspections and random sampling are
dependent on the risk tolerance of the certifying body.

What is the difference?  Do they send it in for certification or don't they?

They send in the spec sheet, not the item. The same thing happens for our radios on NTIA specs.

http://www.supplylinedirect.com/know-the-ansi-standard-for-safety-vests--hi-viz-clothing/?ARTICLE_ID=26&F_CATEGORY_ID=1

Some good info on vests - I suppose someone with a ruler could make the case that a legacy vest is compliant, based purely
on the reflective areas the average SARMed is, though as David said there are other parts to the standard as well, including breakaway strength
for certain applications.

And some info on the color:
This varies. There is some science, opinion, and trends on each.
Some studies indicate the florescent yellow green is more conspicuous during hours of low light, such as dusk and dawn. Yellow green is also known as a “pedestrian” color as indicated by school approach signs etc. This color is also a high contrast against traditional orange work zone devices such as traffic cones and construction signs. Conversely, orange may appear to show less dirt, and some reports indicate it fades a little less quickly. Orange is also traditionally known as “the” safety color in work zones. It has a high contrast to background foliage and trees where workers may be present. Local jurisdictions and corporate policies may require a particular color even though neither the Federal ruling nor ANSI/ISEA do not. Whichever color you choose, evaluate your workspaces and make a decision that best provides for the safety of the worker.
http://198.66.168.26/Products/SafetyApparel/Vests_FAQs.htm

We should note that CAPR 62-1, Section 7, states:  "By October 1, 2012, all safety vests and safety apparel will be required to meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 visibility and reflectivity standards."  That is, irrespective of what are the complete ANSI Class 2 and 3 standards, our vests need only comply with Class 2 or 3 visibility and reflectivity standards.

http://www.supplylinedirect.com/know-the-ansi-standard-for-safety-vests--hi-viz-clothing/?ARTICLE_ID=26&F_CATEGORY_ID=1

Some good info on vests - I suppose someone with a ruler could make the case that a legacy vest is compliant, based purely
on the reflective areas the average SARMed is, though as David said there are other parts to the standard as well, including breakaway strength
for certain applications.

And some info on the color:
This varies. There is some science, opinion, and trends on each.
Some studies indicate the florescent yellow green is more conspicuous during hours of low light, such as dusk and dawn. Yellow green is also known as a “pedestrian” color as indicated by school approach signs etc. This color is also a high contrast against traditional orange work zone devices such as traffic cones and construction signs. Conversely, orange may appear to show less dirt, and some reports indicate it fades a little less quickly. Orange is also traditionally known as “the” safety color in work zones. It has a high contrast to background foliage and trees where workers may be present. Local jurisdictions and corporate policies may require a particular color even though neither the Federal ruling nor ANSI/ISEA do not. Whichever color you choose, evaluate your workspaces and make a decision that best provides for the safety of the worker.
http://198.66.168.26/Products/SafetyApparel/Vests_FAQs.htm

We should note that CAPR 62-1, Section 7, states:  "By October 1, 2012, all safety vests and safety apparel will be required to meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 visibility and reflectivity standards."  That is, irrespective of what are the complete ANSI Class 2 and 3 standards, our vests need only comply with Class 2 or 3 visibility and reflectivity standards.

I think you're splitting hairs too fine because the spec only talks about visibility and reflectivity of clothing.

Agreed. The specification deals with visibility and reflectivity. It doesn't mention what the ultimate use of the clothing is, whether simple vest, shirt, or other "see me" gear. You have to have X amount of reflective material on Y amount of contrasting material to meet either class rating. There is no "only". There's nothing else to the specs.

More here. The actual spec is not downloadable, but may be ordered for a cost.

The actual spec is not downloadable, but may be ordered for a cost.

Which, in itself, is ridiculous.  Specifications like this should be public domain.

The actual spec is not downloadable, but may be ordered for a cost.

Which, in itself, is ridiculous.  Specifications like this should be public domain.

I can see both sides of the argument. ANSI has to pay for the development of the specs somehow but any spec that is codified into law should be freely available to anyone.

The actual spec is not downloadable, but may be ordered for a cost.

Which, in itself, is ridiculous.  Specifications like this should be public domain.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private non-profit organization that oversees the development of voluntary consensus standards for products, services, processes, systems, and personnel in the United States. As such, they are under no obligation to provide free printed material.

FWIW, there is a significant number of FAA pubs that are only available for a fee.