NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (unaudited)

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Organization and Description of the Business

Federal Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and was reincorporated as a Delaware corporation in 1969. References herein to the “Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us” refer collectively to Federal Signal Corporation and its subsidiaries.

Basis of Presentation and Consolidation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements represent the consolidation of Federal Signal Corporation and its subsidiaries included herein and have been prepared by the Company pursuant to the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations, although the Company believes that the disclosures are adequate to ensure the information presented is not misleading. These condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Company’s accounting policies described in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto.

These statements include all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) that we considered necessary for a fair presentation. The results reported in these condensed consolidated financial statements should not be regarded as necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for the entire year. We label our quarterly information using a calendar convention; that is, first quarter is labeled as ending on March 31, second quarter as ending on June 30, and third quarter as ending on September 30. It is our longstanding practice to establish interim quarterly closing dates using a 5-4-4 calendar with the fiscal year ending on December 31. The effects of this practice are modest and only exist within a reporting year.

As discussed in Note 12 – Discontinued Operations, on June 21, 2012, the Company announced that it has signed a definitive agreement to sell its Federal Signal Technologies (“FSTech”) Group. As the Company has met the held for sale criteria during the second quarter of 2012, the FSTech Group has been reported as a discontinued operation. The condensed consolidated financial statements for all periods presented have been recast to present the operating results of the held for sale and previously divested or exited businesses as discontinued operations.

We have reclassified certain prior-period amounts to conform to the current period presentation

Recent Accounting Pronouncements and Accounting Changes

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement Topic 820, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS, which amends the definition of fair value measurement principles and disclosure requirements to eliminate differences between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). ASU 2011-04 requires new quantitative and qualitative disclosures about the sensitivity of recurring Level 3 measurement disclosures, as well as transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The Company’s adoption of this guidance on January 1, 2012 did not impact the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Topic 220, Presentation of Comprehensive Income , which requires companies to include a statement of comprehensive income as part of their interim and annual financial statements. The new guidance gives companies the option to present net income and comprehensive income either in one continuous statement or in two separate but consecutive statements. This approach represents a change from current U.S. GAAP, which allows companies to report other comprehensive income (“OCI”) and its components in the statement of shareholders’ equity. The guidance also allows companies to present OCI either net of tax with details in the notes or to present amounts gross (with tax effects shown parenthetically). The Company’s disclosure of comprehensive income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 is presented in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income in this Form 10-Q. Under the new guidance, certain information included in the condensed consolidated statements of shareholders’ equity is shown in the new statement of comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning January 1, 2012 and should be applied retrospectively. The new guidance impacts presentation

9

only and the Company’s adoption of this guidance on January 1, 2012 did not have an impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, Topic 350, Testing of Goodwill for Impairment, which allows companies to assess qualitative factors to determine whether they need to perform the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test. Under the option, an entity no longer would be required to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit unless it determines, based on that qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. The ASU may change how a company tests goodwill for impairment but should not change the timing or measurement of goodwill impairments. The ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company performed its annual goodwill impairment test as of October 31, 2011. The Company’s adoption of this guidance on January 1, 2012 did not have an impact on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, Topic 210 , Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities . This update is intended to improve the comparability of statements of financial position prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and IFRS, requiring both gross and net presentation of offsetting assets and liabilities. The new requirements are effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. As this guidance only affects disclosures, the adoption of this standard will not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses. Significant estimates and assumptions are used for, but are not limited to, revenue recognition, pension and other postretirement benefits, allowance for doubtful accounts, income tax contingency accruals and valuation allowances, product warranty accruals, asset impairment, purchase price allocation and litigation-related accruals. Actual results could differ from our estimates.

There have been no changes to the Company’s significant accounting policies as disclosed in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Restricted Cash

Restricted cash of $1.5 million at June 30, 2012 consisted of cash deposited with various financial institutions that was pledged as collateral for the Company’s cash-collateralized letters of credit related to equipment and service performance guarantees.

10

The following table provides the gross carrying value and accumulated amortization for each major class of intangible assets:

Amortization expense for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2012 totaled $0.3 million and $0.5 million, respectively, and for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2011 totaled $0.3 million and $0.6 million, respectively. The Company estimates that the total amortization expense will be $1.0 million in 2012, $0.3 million in 2013, $0.2 million in 2014, $0.2 million in 2015, and $0.1 million in 2016.

The Company accounts for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets in accordance with ASC 360 , Intangibles – Goodwill and Other . Under this standard, the Company assesses the impairment of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets at least annually, on October 31, and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable.

4. FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

The Company uses a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. This hierarchy requires entities to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:

The carrying value of short-term debt approximates fair value due to its short maturity (Level 2 input). The fair value of long-term debt is based on interest rates that are currently available to us for issuance of debt with similar terms and remaining maturities (Level 2 input). Other assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis consisted of cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash. The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash approximate fair value because of the short-term maturity and highly liquid nature of these instruments.

The following table summarizes the carrying amounts and fair values of the Company’s financial instruments:

11

Long-term borrowings consisted of the following:

On February 22, 2012, the Company entered into a Credit Agreement, by and among the Company, as borrower and General Electric Capital Corporation, as a co-collateral agent, and Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as administrative agent and co-collateral agent, providing the Company with a new $100 million secured credit facility (the “ABL Facility”).

The ABL Facility is a five-year asset-based revolving credit facility pursuant to which up to $100 million initially will be available, with the right, subject to certain conditions, to increase the availability under the facility by up to an additional $25 million. The ABL Facility provides for loans and letters of credit in an amount up to the aggregate availability under the facility subject to meeting certain borrowing base conditions, with a sub-limit of $50 million for letters of credit. Borrowings under the ABL Facility bear interest, at the Company’s option, at a base rate or a LIBOR rate, plus, in each case, an applicable margin. The applicable margin ranges from 1.00% to 2.75% for base rate borrowings and 1.75% to 3.50% for LIBOR borrowings. The Company must also pay a commitment fee to the facility lenders equal to 0.50% per annum on the unused portion of the ABL Facility along with other standard fees. Letter of credit fees are payable on outstanding letters of credit in an amount equal to the applicable LIBOR margin plus other customary fees.

The Company is allowed to prepay in whole or in part advances under the ABL Facility without penalty or premium other than customary “breakage” costs with respect to LIBOR loans.

The ABL Facility requires that the Company, on a consolidated basis, maintain a minimum monthly fixed charge coverage ratio, along with other customary restrictive covenants, certain of which are subject to materiality thresholds. The Company was in compliance with all of its debt covenants as of June 30, 2012.

The obligations under the ABL Facility are secured by (i) a first priority security interest in the Company’s and its domestic subsidiaries’ accounts, inventory, chattel paper, payment intangibles, cash and cash equivalents and other working capital assets (the “ABL First Priority Collateral”) and (ii) a second priority security interest in all other now or hereafter acquired domestic property and assets, the stock or other equity interests in each of the domestic subsidiaries and certain of the first-tier foreign subsidiaries, subject to certain exclusions.

The Company’s obligations under the ABL Facility are guaranteed by certain of the Company’s domestic subsidiaries.

On February 22, 2012, the Company also entered into a Financing Agreement by and among the Company, as borrower, certain subsidiaries of the Company, as guarantors, the lenders party thereto (the “Term Lenders”) and TPG Specialty Lending, Inc., as administrative agent, collateral agent and sole lead arranger, pursuant to which the Term Lenders agreed to provide the Company with a $215 million term loan (the “Term Loan”).

12

The Term Loan is a five-year, secured term loan maturing on February 22, 2017. Installment payments under the Term Loan do not commence until March 2013. The Term Loan allows for mandatory prepayments in certain specified situations. Except in these certain specified situations, the Term Loan is not repayable in the first 12 months of the term and thereafter is subject to the following prepayment premium; (i) 2.75% in months 13-24, (ii) 2.00% in months 25-36 and (iii) nothing thereafter. These provisions are subject to change upon the occurrence of certain specified events.

The Term Loan will bear interest, at the Company’s option, at a base rate or LIBOR rate, plus, in each case, an applicable margin. The applicable margin ranges from 9.00% to 10.00% for base rate borrowings and 10.00% to 11.00% for LIBOR borrowings. The Company is required to pay certain customary fees in connection with the Term Loan.

The Term Loan requires the Company to comply with financial covenants related to the maintenance of a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, maximum capital expenditures, minimum liquidity, and maximum leverage ratio. The Term Loan has other restrictive covenants which are substantively similar to those applicable to the ABL Facility. The Company was in compliance with all of its debt covenants as of June 30, 2012.

The obligations under the Term Loan are secured by (i) a first priority security interest in all now or hereafter acquired domestic property and assets (excluding the ABL First Priority Collateral), the stock or other equity interests in each of the domestic subsidiaries and certain of the first-tier foreign subsidiaries, subject to certain exclusions, and (ii) a second priority security interest in the ABL First Priority Collateral.

The Company’s obligations under the Term Loan are guaranteed by certain of the Company’s domestic subsidiaries.

Under the Term Loan, dividends shall be permitted only if the following conditions are met:

The Company used the proceeds from the ABL Facility and the Term Loan to (i) repay outstanding balances under the Company’s existing $240 million secured revolving credit facility, dated as of April 25, 2007, as amended, which was to mature on April 25, 2012 (the “Prior Credit Agreement”); (ii) retire the Company’s private placement notes issued pursuant to the Note Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2009, as amended, and pursuant to the Master Note Purchase Agreement dated as of June 1, 2003, as amended (together, the “Prior Note Purchase Agreements”); (iii) finance the ongoing general corporate needs of the Company and its subsidiaries; and (iv) pay fees and expenses associated with repayment of amounts due under the Prior Credit Agreement and the Prior Note Purchase Agreements, including the payment of approximately $1.0 million in resulting breakage fees and premiums under the Prior Credit Agreement and Prior Note Purchase Agreements, and pay fees and expenses associated with the ABL Facility and the Term Loan.

In accounting for the classification of its outstanding debt as of December 31, 2011, the Company considered the guidance in ASC 470-10-45-14. As the Company had effectively refinanced short-term debt on a long-term basis subsequent to the condensed consolidated balance sheet date, the amounts outstanding under the Prior Credit Agreement and the Prior Note Purchase Agreements as of December 31, 2011 were reflected as a component of long-term borrowings and capital lease obligations on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

As of December 31, 2011, $180.0 million was drawn on the Prior Credit Agreement leaving available borrowings of $49.1 million that included $32.5 million of capacity used for existing letters of credit.

As of June 30, 2012, the available borrowing base under the ABL Facility was $79.7 million. As of June 30, 2012, there was $18.2 million in cash drawn and $32.8 million of undrawn letters of credit under the ABL Facility, reducing net availability for borrowings to $28.7 million.

As of June 30, 2012, $3.9 million was drawn against the Company’s non-U.S. lines of credit which provide for borrowings up to $13.9 million.

Aggregate maturities of total borrowings amount to approximately $4.0 million in 2012, $21.7 million in 2013, $32.3 million in 2014, $32.3 million in 2015, $32.3 million in 2016, and $114.1 million thereafter. These maturities primarily reflect the payment terms of the ABL Facility and the Term Loan. The fair values of aggregate borrowings were $236.7 million and $221.5 million at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Included in current maturities are $3.9 million of other non-U.S. lines of credit, $10.8 million of Term Loan, and $0.1 million of capital lease obligations.

13

Upon execution of the Company’s new debt agreements in February 2012, the remaining unamortized deferred financing costs related to the Prior Credit Agreement and the Prior Note Purchase Agreement were written off. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company recorded $1.6 million of costs related to the termination of its prior debt agreements. The costs included $1.0 million of make-whole interest payments and a write-off of deferred financing costs of $0.6 million.

The Company has incurred $8.0 million of debt issuance costs associated with the execution of its new debt agreements through June 30, 2012, of which $6.2 million was paid in 2012. Financing costs incurred related to the new debt agreements are deferred and amortized over the remaining life of the new debt. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, deferred financing fees totaled $7.3 million and $1.0 million, respectively, and are included in deferred charges and other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

6. INCOME TAXES

The Company recognized an income tax provision of $0.3 million and $1.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized an income tax provision of $1.0 million and $2.5 million, respectively. The income tax provision for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 primarily relates to tax expense at non-U.S. operations that are not in a cumulative loss position. Due to the Company’s recent cumulative domestic losses for book purposes and the uncertainty of the realization of certain deferred tax assets, the Company continues to adjust its valuation allowance as the deferred tax assets increase or decrease, resulting in effectively no recorded tax benefit for domestic operating losses. The Company’s effective tax rate was 3% and 16% for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company’s effective tax rate was 7% and 43%, respectively.

The Company’s unrecognized tax benefits were $4.3 million at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, of which $4.2 million are tax benefits that, if recognized, would reduce the annual effective tax rate. The Company’s continuing practice is to recognize interest and penalties related to income tax matters in income tax expense. Interest and penalties amounting to $0.2 million and $0.1 million, respectively, are included in the condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2012. The Company expects the unrecognized tax benefits to decrease by $1.6 million over the next twelve months.

During the six-month period ended June 30, 2012, the Company contributed $3.2 million to its U.S. defined benefit plan and $1.2 million to its non-U.S. defined benefit plan. During the comparable prior-year period, no contribution to the U.S. defined benefit plan was made and the Company contributed $0.6 million to the non-U.S. defined benefit plan. The Company expects to contribute the required $11.2 million to the U.S. benefit plan and approximately $1.6 million to the non-U.S. benefit plan in 2012.

8. EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

Earnings (loss) per share — basic is computed by dividing income or loss available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period. Earnings (loss) per share — diluted reflects the potential dilution that could occur if options issued under stock-based compensation awards were converted into common stock. For the three-month periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, options to purchase 2.3 million and 1.8 million shares of the Company’s common stock, respectively, had exercise prices that were greater than the average market price of those shares during the respective reporting periods. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, options to purchase 2.1 million and 1.5 million shares of the Company’s common stock, respectively, had exercise prices that were greater than the average market price of those shares during the respective reporting periods. As a result, these shares are excluded from the earnings (loss) per share calculation as they are anti-dilutive.

14

9. COMMITMENTS

Standby Letters of Credit

At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had outstanding standby letters of credit aggregating $33.3 million and $34.2 million, respectively, principally to act as security for retention levels related to casualty insurance policies and to guarantee the performance of subsidiaries that engage in export transactions to non-U.S. governments and municipalities.

Warranties

The Company issues product performance warranties to customers with the sale of its products. The specific terms and conditions of these warranties vary depending upon the product sold and the country in which the Company conducts business, with warranty periods generally ranging from one to ten years. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its basic limited warranty and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time the sale of the related product is recognized. Factors that affect the Company’s warranty liability include the number of units under warranty from time to time, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims, and costs per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary.

Changes in the Company’s warranty liabilities in the six-month periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 were as follows :

Environmental Liabilities

The Company retained an environmental consultant to conduct an environmental risk assessment at its former Pearland, Texas facility. In May 2012, the Company sold its Pearland, Texas facility for proceeds of $0.9 million and recorded a pre-tax gain of $0.4 million. The facility, which was previously used by the Company’s discontinued Pauluhn business, manufactured marine, offshore and industrial lighting products. While the Company has not completed the risk assessment analysis, it appears probable the site will require remediation. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, $2.1 million and $2.2 million, respectively, of reserves related to the environmental remediation are included in the liabilities of discontinued operations. The Company’s estimate may change in the near term as more information becomes available; however, the costs are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to various claims, other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after

15

consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. Beginning in 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to 9. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company is appealing this verdict. A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this last trial, the trial court on March 12, 2012 entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois appellate court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois appellate court accepted the Company’s petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s certification order. Thereafter, the trial court scheduled another consolidated trial, involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which is set to begin on December 6, 2012.

The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Most of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represents (the “Claimants”) and who have asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred and eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay (the “Settlement Payment”) a total amount of $3.8 million to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”); (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit, with prejudice; (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company; and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by claimants, which was 95.02% of all claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and the inconvenience and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

16

During April and May 2012, 15 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 15 Philadelphia firefighters and involve various defendants in addition to the Company.

Firefighters have brought hearing loss claims against the Company in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia and Cook County. In particular, cases have been filed in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York which were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. The trial court subsequently denied reconsideration of its ruling. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.

Federal Signal’s ongoing negotiations with CNA over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company’s defense costs. In the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded $0.8 million of reimbursements from CNA as a reduction of corporate operating expenses all of which had been received as of December 31, 2011. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company recorded $0.4 million of reimbursements from CNA as a reduction of corporate operating expenses all of which has been received as of June 30, 2012.

On July 29, 2011, Neology, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court of Delaware for alleged patent infringements. The lawsuit demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) systems and products that allegedly infringe certain specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. On December 2, 2011, Neology filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enter an order preliminarily enjoining the Company from further alleged infringement of certain Neology patents. On June 18, 2012, a U.S. District Court Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. Neology filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, which will be reviewed by a U.S. District Court judge. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.

On May 21, 2012, Neology filed another complaint against the Company, also for alleged patent infringement, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 19, 2012, Neology filed certain amendments to that complaint. The amended complaint similarly demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling certain RFID transponders and readers that allegedly infringe certain other specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has yet to file a response to this complaint but intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.

10. SEGMENT INFORMATION

The Company has three operating segments as defined under ASC Topic 280, Segment Reporting . Business units are organized under each segment because they share certain characteristics, such as technology, marketing, distribution and product application, which create long-term synergies. The principal activities of the Company’s operating segments are as follows:

Safety and Security Systems — Our Safety and Security Systems Group is a leading manufacturer and supplier of comprehensive systems and products that law enforcement, fire rescue, emergency medical services, campuses, military facilities and industrial sites use to protect people and property. Offerings include systems for campus and community alerting, emergency vehicles, first responder interoperable communications, industrial communications and command and municipal networked security. Specific products include lightbars and sirens, public warning sirens and public safety software. Products are primarily sold under the Federal Signal ^TM , Federal Signal VAMA ^TM , Target Tech ^® , and Victor ^TM brand names. The Group operates manufacturing facilities in North America, Europe, and South Africa.

Fire Rescue  — Our Fire Rescue Group manufactures articulated and telescopic aerial platforms for rescue and fire fighting and for maintenance purposes. This Group sells to municipal and industrial fire services, civil defense authorities, rental companies, electric utilities and industrial customers. The Group manufactures in Finland and sells globally under the Bronto Skylift ^® brand name.

Environmental Solutions  — Our Environmental Solutions Group manufactures a variety of self-propelled street cleaning vehicles, vacuum loader vehicles, municipal catch basin/sewer cleaning vacuum trucks, and waterblasting equipment. The Group sells primarily to municipal and government customers and industrial contractors. Products are sold under the Elgin ^® , Vactor ^® , Guzzler ^® and Jetstream ^® brand names. The Group primarily manufactures its vehicles and equipment in the United States.

Corporate contains those items that are not included in our operating segments.

The Company evaluates performance based on operating income of the respective segment. Operating income includes all revenues, costs and expenses directly related to the segment involved. In determining operating segment income, neither corporate nor interest expenses are included. Operating segment depreciation expense, identifiable assets and capital expenditures relate to those assets that are utilized by the respective operating segment. Corporate assets consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, notes and other receivables and fixed assets. The accounting policies of each operating segment are the same as those

17

described in the summary of significant accounting policies in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. Intersegment sales were not material for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.

We have reclassified certain prior-period amounts to conform to the current period presentation. Segment results have been recast to exclude the results of the FSTech Group’s operations, which have been presented as discontinued operations. Information regarding the Company’s discontinued operations is included in Note 12 — Discontinued Operations.

The following table summarizes the Company’s net sales, operating income (loss), and total assets by segment. The results for the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.