Narrative:

Boi was operating under cenrap conditions. This requires us to use ZLC mias instead of boi mvas and keep aircraft higher than normal. Air carrier X was number two for runway 28 and was expecting RNAV runway 28L. The clearance issued to air carrier X was to follow the profile of the RNAV 28L approach but maintain 8000. The number one aircraft was executing the RNAV runway 28R approach and I had the chart displayed for the runway 28R approach. I instructed air carrier X to track inbound from iruse to emime and once established to descend and maintain 6000; using the published altitudes between the two fixes. I was awaiting a down time from the aircraft ahead. Once I observed air carrier X established on the course and received a down time from the tower; I cleared air carrier X for the RNAV28L approach. Afterward; I was looking at the RNAV approach plates and realized I had issued runway 28R fixes and altitudes to air carrier X when they were expecting runway 28L. The fixes I should have used are nesle and evake where the minimum altitude is 6200. I believe the aircraft never descended below 6200 until they would have been inside of evake; where the minimum altitude is 5500. The runway center lines are 700 feet apart. There is only one final approach course depicted for both approaches. Recommendation; a controller must verify that they are looking at the correct approach plate. I normally place my data tags in certain positions to indicate north or south runway but since I was operating in cenrap; my normal procedures were off.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BOI approach controller issued wrong altitude step down assignment when looking at the chart for RNAV 28R when the aircraft was aligned with RNAV 28L; the reporter listing the use of CENRAP as a possible contributing factor.

Narrative: BOI was operating under CENRAP conditions. This requires us to use ZLC MIAs instead of BOI MVAs and keep aircraft higher than normal. Air Carrier X was number two for Runway 28 and was expecting RNAV Runway 28L. The clearance issued to Air Carrier X was to follow the profile of the RNAV 28L approach but maintain 8000. The number one aircraft was executing the RNAV Runway 28R approach and I had the chart displayed for the Runway 28R approach. I instructed Air Carrier X to track inbound from IRUSE to EMIME and once established to descend and maintain 6000; using the published altitudes between the two fixes. I was awaiting a down time from the aircraft ahead. Once I observed Air Carrier X established on the course and received a down time from the Tower; I cleared Air Carrier X for the RNAV28L approach. Afterward; I was looking at the RNAV approach plates and realized I had issued Runway 28R fixes and altitudes to Air Carrier X when they were expecting Runway 28L. The fixes I should have used are NESLE and EVAKE where the minimum altitude is 6200. I believe the aircraft never descended below 6200 until they would have been inside of EVAKE; where the minimum altitude is 5500. The runway center lines are 700 feet apart. There is only one final approach course depicted for both approaches. Recommendation; a controller must verify that they are looking at the correct approach plate. I normally place my data tags in certain positions to indicate north or south runway but since I was operating in CENRAP; my normal procedures were off.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.