The US Postal Service said on Monday that it sees no merit in the Affordable Mail Alliance’s (AMA) motion to dismiss an exigent rate increase recently filed by the USPS and is asking the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to deny the motion. On July 26, the AMA filed a motion with the PRC to dismiss the US Postal Service’s proposed rate hike, arguing that it violates cost controls put in place by in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA). The PAEA allows the US Postal Service to request rate increases that are higher than the rate of inflation under “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances,” which is what the US Postal Service has claimed it is facing as it tries to find a way to fill a projected $7 billion budget gap next year. The AMA’s motion, however, insists that the US Postal Service’s current economic woes are its own fault because it failed to adequately address a drop in mail volume caused by the growth of Internet communications as well as the current recession (click here to see the full AMA motion). The AMA’s 700 members include The Direct Marketing Association, IDEAlliance, Arandell Corp. and IWCO Direct. The US Postal Service, in its response to the PRC, said the AMA’s motion is “wholly deficient” in its interpretation of the “extraordinary and exceptional circumstances” standard. “The Postal Service’s request is clearly authorized by the fact that the Postal Service has suffered severe volume declines in the past several years. One has to go back to the Great Depression to find year-to-year volume declines that are comparable to these declines. This reflects the exceptional severity of the recent recession. Clearly, volume declines of such a precipitous and historic nature constitute circumstances that are “extraordinary” or “exceptional” within the plain meaning of those terms.” The AMA shot back today with a statement from Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and one of the authors of the PAEA. “As the author of the PAEA, I can unequivocally state that the law does not provide for an exigent rate case based merely on poor economic circumstances or on increased utilization of electronic or other alternatives to traditional mail. Neither of these circumstances is exceptional nor extraordinary as required by law.”