If there wasn't a change submitted by 1/1/13, then the 2015 is locked up. looks like the 2012 is pretty much unchanged, other than requireing well drainage. And looking through the code change proposals I found this;
RB119 – 13
R310.1.1, R310.1.2, R310.1.3, R310.1.5 (NEW)
Proponent: Rick Davidson, City of Maple Grove, Association of Minnesota Building Officials (rdavidson@maplegrovemn.gov)
Revise as follows:
R310.1.1 Minimum opening area unobstructed glass area for windows. All Where windows are used as emergency escape and rescue openings, they shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2).
Exception: Grade floor openings windows shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5 square feet (0.465 m2).
R310.1.2 Minimum opening unobstructed glass height. The minimum net clear opening height The minimum unobstructed glass height shall be 24 inches (610 mm).
R310.1.3 Minimum opening unobstructed glass width. The minimum net clear opening width The minimum unobstructed glass width shall be 20 inches (508 mm).
R310.1.4 Operational constraints. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge.
R310.1.5 Doors used as emergency escape and rescue openings. Where a door is used to meet the requirements of this section, it shall be of a size that is capable of being used for its intended purpose.
Reason: This is a different and more logical approach to dealing with the size of emergency escape and rescue openings.
The dimensions that are currently being used for egress windows have been cited in ICC Commentaries and in the UBC predecessors as being the result of a study by the San Diego Fire Department. That statement is false. The ICC offices have no copies of any study that was done by the San Diego Fire Department that establishes egress window dimensions nor is there any record of any such study existing nor is there any recollection by ICC staff that they have ever seen such a study. Discussions with long time members of the San Diego Fire Department reveal that the Department never took part in any study to determine the appropriate size of egress windows.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the dimensions in the code for egress windows exist without any scientific basis.
However, if one is going to have emergency escape and rescue windows, one must have certain size requirements for those windows. But the rules should be reasonable and defensible.
It has been stated by some folks that the reason for the 20 inch width requirement is that it accommodates the width of a fire ladder (20 inches). The area is necessary because "the studies" indicated that such a size (5.7 square feet) is necessary to allow emergency personnel to enter the room through the window wearing necessary safety gear (24 inches of height and 5.7 square ft). I’m not sure how that justifies the 5.0 square foot openings permitted at grade.
I don’t know if there is a standard width for ladders or not. But the fallacy that exists is the assumption that the window will be open when a rescue attempt is made. Isn’t it more likely that the window will be closed? Isn’t it more likely that the following photos depict actual conditions? Isn’t it more likely that a rescue person would need to break the window to initiate a rescue? If the ladder is placed in the window opening, won’t it impede access into the room, especially with a casement window? Isn’t it more reasonable to regulate the rescue opening based on the glass size of the closed window rather than the openable size of the window since that is more than likely how rescue personnel will encounter the window? Won’t rescue personnel break out any glass in an opening rather than try to open the window? Of course.
Therefore, it seems to make much more sense to base emergency escape and rescue window requirements on glass size rather than openable area. Even for occupants of the room, it may be more appropriate to break the glass rather than trying to reach operating hardware that may be located where the air is untenable.
Last, there is language proposed to address doors used as rescue and escape openings. The size of the door entering the room is unregulated. This is the primary exit from the room. If a door used as the primary exit is not regulated, why should a secondary door face stricter limits? The proposed language requires that the door be "capable of being used for its intended purpose". This is similar to language approved by the IRC committee in the past and gives the field inspector discretion over door sizes. The inspector may use location, size of the occupant, or whatever limitations seem reasonable to establish the opening size.