Students with microwaves, hotpots and toasters had to go to extra lengths to skirt College restrictions on electrical appliances this year, as House superintendents cracked down on room inspections in the wake of an Eliot House fire.

During past years, House superintendents reported students with microwaves or other forbidden items to their assistant dean or senior tutor, but often allowed offenders to keep the items. This year, however, superintendents sent out warning notices for violations over winter break and are re-inspecting rooms to confiscate appliances that have not been removed.

A fire in the Eliot House Grille on Nov. 11 prompted increased pressure from Cambridge to enforce the fire policy, which prohibits students from using any cooking equipment, including electric appliances and hotpots, in their rooms.

“Harvard buildings have been under close scrutiny by the Cambridge fire marshal, quite properly so, in my opinion, given the near-catastrophe that occurred recently in Eliot House,” Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 wrote in an e-mail. “For that and other reasons we are, therefore, fully in cooperation with the city in a joint effort to correct any violations of city fire codes.”

The change also resulted from heightened concerns about fire safety both locally and nationally, said Zach Gingo, manager of administrative operations for Harvard Yard Operations.

“We have been pushing [Harvard] a lot more this year because of recent fires that happened in other colleges—they’ve lost six or seven kids,” said Joseph Nicoloro, a senior sanitary inspector at Cambridge Inspection Services.

Although superintendents met to discuss the new policy, they established no standard for the thoroughness of an inspection. While some superintendents looked in closets and under beds, others checked only visible areas.

“To a certain extent, it’s left to a super’s discretion,” Gingo said. “We do not tell the super to pry into every nook and cranny. But if they saw power cords running from inside the closet, they might take a look.”

Gene Ketelhohn, superintendent of Cabot House, said superintendents were aware of students’ privacy concerns regarding the inspections, which often occur without the occupant present.

“Some supers have been reticent about how far they should go in searching a room,” he said. “The handbook leaves it open.”

The student handbook forbids students from attaching a non-University lock to any door and notes that “the University must have access to all student suites and the rooms within them.” It does not mention any limitation on the scope of room inspections.

“It’s one thing to go into a room to look around, but it’s an invasion of privacy to rifle through closets and drawers,” said Matthew H. Eckhouse ’04, a resident of Leverett House.

Thomas F. Traugott ’02 said that during the winter break search of his Cabot House room, inspectors lifted a comforter hat was blocking the bottom of his roommate’s bed and found a toaster oven hidden underneath.

Traugott added that the comforter was suspiciously pulled down all the way to the floor and may have caught the eye of inspectors. Gingo said that while such occurrences were rare, if investigators “saw something leading them to believe” that there was a prohibited item in a concealed area, including under a bed, they might check it.

“They’re not going to be rooting through personal belongings in an attempt to find every fire hazard,” he said.