A window cannot be part of an "egress" path so there is no such thing as an "egress window".

An egress path is made up of doors, corridors and stairways with minimum widths, landings, thresholds, etc. that lead from all habitable spaces to the exterior of the building without passing through a garage.
An "emergency escape and rescue opening" is unrelated to the egress path and is only required from each sleeping room. It is separate from, and in addition to, the building egress requirement.

A typical bedroom is required to have a door that leads to an egress path out of the building and also an emergency escape and rescue opening. This is the code attempt to offer more than one way out in case of a fire at night when everyone is sleeping which is crude but effective. That opening can be a window of a certain minimum size and height from the floor or it can be a door but it must open directly to the exterior of the building so someone could escape of a fire department could effect a rescue.

If you are designing a single family house the building code would normally not be the IBC (International Building Code); it would be the IRC (International Residential Code). The IBC would normally only apply to multi-family buildings that contain 3 or more dwelling units.

The legality of passing through a "nook" to reach emergency escape windows is something only a building inspector can determine so draw what you want and submit it.

A possibly more difficult issue is whether or not the windows in that arrangement would satisfy the bedroom ventilation requirement if there is no mechanical ventilation provided. It is usually a matter of the size of the spaces and the size of the opening that connects the spaces. It's all spelled out in the Building Planning chapter of the IRC.

See I told you I was all confused! Yes I meant IRC, not IBC. The reason I was calling the window egress is because that was what the window company I talked to called them. There will be three operable windows that should meet the ventilation requirements, but I know that they are too high (five feet off ground) and too small (2 x 2) to pass for emergency escape and rescue.

Presumably, these are people you love who will be sleeping in this hypothetical being-designed bedrooms. I'd re-work the plan until you had bedrooms that meet the codes.

You need to be able to classify the "nook" as not habitable (storage room, closet, etc.) or as an "adjoining" space to the bedroom in order to avoid the minimum habitable space requirements of the IRC (min. area = 70 s.f.; minimum dimension = 7 ft.

The definition of an "adjoining" space is found in the ventilation section. One half of the area of the common wall must be open and unobstructed with an opening of at least 1/10 of the floor area of the main room but not less then 25 s.f. The definition of an opening in the IRC does not prohibit a door but the building inspector might see it differently.

If the space is "adjoining" the main room, the required windows can be located in either space.

It should be quite obvious that the final plan will meet the building code in order to obtain a building permit and it should be just as obvious that meeting the requirements of the building code was the motivation of mcamy's original question.

Lack of familiarity with proper interpretation of the building code should not be a justification for implying that someone is personally negligent regarding their family's safety.

"A window cannot be part of an "egress" path so there is no such thing as an "egress window"."

While I am sure people really appreciate your insight, it would be even better with a bit less attitude. And if there's attitude it better be based on a solid foundation because otherwise it becomes arrogance.

Case in point:

IRC2003 R310.1, excerpt:

"Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency EGRESS and rescue openings shall be required in each sleeping room..."

So at least IRC2003 (there may be a more recent edition) calls it an emergency EGRESS ... opening. And so do many, many companies that sell windows for this purpose.

Now don't start bickering on my thread. I've gotten some helpful information. I never interpret macv's comments as arrogant. The only attitude he has is one of authority which is what I came here to seek anyway.

That wording in Section 310 can be interpreted in one of two ways and neither interpretation makes a window part of a means of egress (Section 311).

The wording in question was originally used in the old CABO code from the 80's & 90's when the term "egress" was used to describe any and all required methods of exiting the building in an emergency. Both methods were described in Section 211 "EXITS" and the term "egress" was used with it's most general meaning.

However, this was not the case with the national codes for larger buildings where there was no requirement for an emergency escape opening and a "means of egress" was described in it's own section and did not include a window.

In 2000, "CABO" changed it's name to the "ICC" (International Code Council) and revised the residential building code (now called the IRC). The ICC also combined the national building codes for larger buildings published by its 3 member organizations (now called the IBC).

In order to resolve the conflict between the different terms used for exits, the new IRC dropped the term "Exit" and created two separate sections: "Means of Egress" and "Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings".

Because of this change the term "egress" had a specific rather than a general meaning. Unfortunately many window manufacturers and contractors have not figured this out yet.

The wording that has gotten jrldh all exercised is taken directly from the 20 year old CABO code Section R210 when the term "egress" had a different meaning. The use of this word can be interpreted in one of two ways but not as jrldh has suggested.

1. The term should have been omitted when the major code revision occurred.
or
2. The term refers to the section 311 requirement for a means of egress from all basement sleeping rooms in addition to the requirement for an emergency escape and rescue opening.

In any case, it doesn't really matter because the IRC does not allow a window to be part of a "Means of Egress" so there can be no such thing as an "egress window" and homeowners should be warned to avoid using that term.

jrldh has made some pretty nasty accusations obviously intended to offend me and they have.

I offer free professional advice here when owners and architectural firms are willing to pay me well for the same work. I'm going to give one of the other members a revised perspective of her project and then let someone with a better "attitude" (like jrldh, I suppose) take over responsibility for advising members on their house designs.

There always seems to be a few "guns" out there that instead of collaborating, (as well as learning), from folks like MACV and others, look for avenues of snipe and throw out digs to that particular responder for the insane reason that the wealth of knowledge and professional advise given seems to go across their grain for whatever reason that might be. All this accomplishes besides not answering the OP's original question, is to cause those pros who are contributing greatly to this and other forums to pack up and leave which is a major loss. Respect goes a long way and we all should work together without personal attacks or digs.

It takes a long time to change errors in the ICC codes but in 2009 they finally corrected their obvious and misleading use of the term "egress" when referring to emergency escape and rescue openings. (I say obvious because the term was used correctly 10 times in the section including the headings of the section and the paragraph in question so the one deviation would have been ignored by anyone familiar with building codes).

The old code version (as quoted by jrldh) said:
"Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency EGRESS and rescue openings shall be required in each sleeping room..." (emphasis by jrlh)

The new code version corrects the word "egress" to be "escape" as follows:

"Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency ESCAPE and rescue openings shall be required in each sleeping room..." (emphasis by me)

So, my statement,"A window cannot be part of an "egress" path so there is no such thing as an "egress window", is the truth so far as the ICC codes are concerned. It may be OK to use "egress" in a more general and casual manner when buying windows or chatting on the internet but if you want to interpret codes properly or discuss their requirements with professional designers or building officials, you would be wise to use the terms the same way the ICC uses them.

In this case, the OP asked for an ICC code interpretation and that is what I attempted to provide. I felt that the difference between egress and emergency escape was the first thing that needed to be clarified since it causes so much confusion with people unfamiliar with building codes, jrldh being a prime example.

The members here sometimes object to me not saying "in my opinion" or "I might be wrong", etc. but after 40 years of interpreting building codes for a living those phrases simply don't occur to me. Can you imagine what my clients would think if I qualified all of my statements? The only time I have trouble with code interpretations is when they change but these egress vs escape issues have been in the codes for 30 years.

jrldh, you might consider keeping your opinions about other members to yourself until you have offered some useful advice to at least one OP at the Garden Web. Until you have done that, you are nothing more than a TROLL - a person who trolls internet forums looking for an opportunity to disrupt and sidetrack legitimate discussions.

My apologies to the OP--I mis-read what she was planning.

"The members here sometimes object to me not saying "in my opinion" or "I might be wrong", etc. but after 40 years of interpreting building codes for a living those phrases simply don't occur to me. Can you imagine what my clients would think if I qualified all of my statements? The only time I have trouble with code interpretations is when they change but these egress vs escape issues have been in the codes for 30 years. "

Unfortunately those code and building professionals who also post here don't hold the same opinion of Macv that he holds of himself, don't take him seriously, and KNOW that his interpretation of the codes are flat out WRONG, MISGUIDED, and MISLEADING in many if not MOST cases....like this one.

And why we do not take MacV seriously at all.

MacV unfortunately mixes Code definitions when they aren't intended to be mixed...nor does he not have any solid understanding of these "codes" he likes to cite even after 30 or 40 years.

His "appeals" to obsolete codes may sound good to those who have so idea what he is talking about, but for those of us who do, we can only laugh at MacV's lack of any real understanding of Codes at all.

That said, Code language is Code speciific.

Without knowing under what Code the original poster is required to build, all bets are off..,..especially MacV's silly comments of them.

So too, are Macv's poor interpretations of defintions.

'Means of Egress' involves a direct route to a public way which CANNOT be through an adajacent room.

Even for an 'emergency escape and rescue opening'.

Bottom line: Don't look here to to MacV with is "30 or 40 years" of getting things wrong to guide you.

Look to you local Code Enforcement Office and get the REAL DEAL.

Sheesh...

There always seems to be a few "guns" out there that instead of collaborating, (as well as learning), from folks like MACV and others, look for avenues of snipe and throw out digs to that particular responder for the insane reason that the wealth of knowledge and professional advise given seems to go across their grain for whatever reason that might be. All this accomplishes besides not answering the OP's original question, is to cause those pros who are contributing greatly to this and other forums to pack up and leave which is a major loss. Respect goes a long way and we all should work together without personal attacks or digs.

Thank you sierraeast. My wife, ncamy, and I do look to GW for advice. macv did/does help explain some of the confusing terms. Just from this thread I learned the difference between an egress path and an egress window. I now understand how the terms get mixed up.

I think it's too easy to sit behind the anonymous internet and attack other people, when most people really do want to help. Whether they are right or wrong they are trying to help. People who attack other posters are nothing but distractors. Everyone has the right to disagree but to attack another personally is of no value.

The code in question is based on the 2006 IRC and I stand by my original advice to the OP:
"The legality of passing through a "nook" to reach emergency escape windows is something only a building inspector can determine so draw what you want and submit it."

My other comments were in response to jrldh's insulting comments and have little if anything to do with the OP's question.

If anyone feels any comments on this thread are abusive and inappropriate they should send the URL of the thread to the moderator at the link for "letters and comments" at the bottom of the main Building A Home page.

Because the 2006 IRC is silent about access to an emergency escape and rescue window from a sleeping room through an intervening space, the local building official might accept the use of the rules that allow a means of egress to pass through an intervening space (1013.2) as follows:

1. The space is "accessory" to the area served.
2. It contains no high-hazard occupancy.
3. There is a "discernible path" to the emergency escape window.
4. The "nook" is not a closet, storage room, bathroom or another sleeping area.
5. The door(s) cannot be locked.

If the door(s) were glass it might help gain approval.

Obviously, the building official's opinion will be the determining factor but he/she is NOT the designer of your house so take a drawing of what you want to do and present a good case for how it is equivalent to what the code requires and see what happens.

The rules for an egress through an intervening space (modified above for an escape window) are from the 2006 IBC. The IBC is not intended to be applicable to a single family house but in a case where the IRC is silent many building officials will accept a proposal for a "compliance alternative" that is equivalent to the applicable code if it is accompanied by reasonable evidence from a recognized source or licensed design professional. In this case, the IBC should be considered a recognized source.