**5. Conclusions**

Taking into account the hypothesis stated earlier, we will summarize this section. In sector № 8 in 1996, two earthquakes with magnitudes M ≥ 6 took place at depths

ranging from 0 to 10 km. The first event (1996-06-21) was accompanied by increased aftershock activity (348 earthquakes with *KS* ≥ 8.5 occurred from 1996-06-21 to the second shock on 1996-07-18). After the second shock, the activity decreased sharply, and until 1996-12-31, only 61 seismic events occurred. Considering the dynamics of general seismicity over the years (see **Figures 3** and **4**), we see that in areas far from the main shock, at the depths of the upcoming earthquake, strong events with aftershock activity arose, after which a seismic lull followed and continued until the main event on 1997-12-05 with *ML* = 7.0, which occurred at a depth of *h* = 10 km. The distance from the main shock, which took place in sector 1, to the seismic events preceding it in sector 8 with subsequent intensification of aftershock activity, was more than 400 km. In turn, from 1994 to the main shock on 1997-12-05, seismic activity increased at shallow depths (from 0 to 20 km) in sectors that are mosaically scattered along the eastern coast of Kamchatka, as well as in different time intervals (not simultaneously).

To support this hypothesis, we can note:


It is absolutely clear that the consideration of one event as a confirmation of the stated hypothesis is not enough and requires further research on the example of other large earthquakes. In addition, the impossibility of a more accurate determination of the hypocenter depth and its replacement by *hmet*, when the error Δ*hmist* is commensurate with the depth itself, seems to be somewhat arbitrary. However, the ideology of this approach to the analysis of the depth distributions of earthquake epicenters on the eve of major events based on the application of the general conclusions of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, in our opinion, is promising.
