According to the Code of Canons, the Eastern Catholic hierarchs in a given country have the right to organize their own, distinct, episcopal conference - which in the USA would be an excellent idea (find out how much money it costs your eparchy to belong to the USCCB). There would then be some sort of liason between the two conferences (and perhaps the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Metropolitans might be accredited to the USCCB).
This is not a prospect that the USCCB would welcome. So it is not foolish to assume that this Eastern Catholic structure within the USCCB has been created to preclude an insistence on administrative separation.
Father Serge
I think this is technically incorrect.
There can be only ONE episcopal conference in a given country (or defined territory or region), with the predominant sui juris Church given the responsibility to organize and formalize such an institution, considered permanent by canon law. Bishops of the minority sui juris Churches become associated members of that national episcopal conference.
In the case of the eparchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the United States, who form a minority of the Catholic bishops here, they are associated members of the USCCB but this time around they have been afforded a separate subgroup as Region XV of the USCCB.
As such, they can freely associate themselves in accordance with the provisions of Canon 322 of the CCEO but cannot erect a parallel "U.S. Episcopal Conference of Eastern Catholic Bishops."
For example, the "Conference of Catholic Bishops of India" includes under one umbrella all the bishops of the Latin Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. The difference in their case is that all the bishops, regardless of Rite, equally each has both deliberative and voting powers. Thus, the Presidency of the Conference has been alternating among the 3 ritual Churches. There is no need to form a separate grouping for the Eastern Catholic hierarchs.