dissenting in part:
I dissent in part because I disagree with the majority’s holding that Rushing’s sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. The majority, in essence, decides that the fact that a defendant is an employee of a private company means that he or she does not hold a position of public trust and, alternatively, that the enhancement is ambiguous and therefore its application violates the rule of lenity. I disagree with both conclusions.
As I explain below, I find no legally sufficient ambiguity in the Guidelines, nor do our cases hold that the public or private character of a defendant’s position controls whether he or she enjoys a public trust.See United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502, 505 (9th Cir.1990) (“Hill argues that truck driving is not the type of employment that can ever give rise to a position of public or private trust. We disagree.”); accord United States v. Gordon, 61 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir.1995) (“The abuse of trust enhancement was not designed to turn on formalistic definitions of job type.”). The fact that Rushing is not a government employee or public official, but an employee of a private company is not, as the majority suggests, dispositive of the question before us. Our precedents require, instead, that we look to the facts of the defendant’s conduct and that we ask whether a position of public trust may be inferred from those facts. Id. Moreover, the majority would be mistaken even if our cases stood for the proposition that “Rushing’s position as an employee of a private firm that was a government contractor is, without more,” Opinion at 30, insufficient to support an enhancement, because there is sufficient “more” in this case to uphold the district court’s sentence.
/.
The facts fully support the conclusion that Rushing abused a public trust. Rick Rushing was not merely an employee of Technic Services, but also its secretary, treasurer, one of its two owners, and, at all times relevant to this case, its health and safety officer and its on-site supervisor. He directly supervised how Technic Service’s employees conducted their asbestos remediation work at the Sitka pulp mill, and he, himself, personally participated in the remediation work. The work done under Rushing’s direct and knowing supervision flagrantly violated federal and state asbestos work practice standards and resulted in repeated and significant releases of asbestos fibers into the open air and into Silver Bay. Rushing personally dropped substantial amounts of material containing asbestos from heights of 80 feet or more, releasing clouds of asbestos into the air.
The evidence also established that Rushing was directly responsible for monitoring asbestos air levels in the Sitka pulp mill for compliance with work safety standards set by federal and state law. The EPA did not directly monitor compliance, but entrusted that task to Technic Services. Rushing, as the company’s health and safety officer and as its on-site supervisor, directly supervised the monitoring. Instead of monitoring asbestos levels accurately, Rushing instructed his employees to tamper with the company’s air quality monitors. At his direction, Technic Service’s employees deactivated the monitors and covered and cleaned their measuring cassettes. The tampering prevented accurate measurement of asbestos levels within the mill, and, although it was detected later, the tampering hindered the federal *1055investigation into the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act violations at the site.
Both the State of Alaska and the federal government regulate asbestos abatement extensively as a hazard to human health. See 40 C.F.R. § 61.145, Alaska Stat. 18.31.200, Alaska Admin. Code tit. 18 § 61.610. In addition, Alaska has created a certification requirement that mandates that a “person may not be employed to abate an asbestos health hazard unless the person has been certified in a program approved by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.” Alaska Stat. 18.31.200(c). To become certified, an individual must receive at least forty hours of instruction in proper asbestos handling and in the health, safety, and environmental considerations of working with asbestos. Alaska Admin.Code tit. 18 § 61.700(a)(3). The instruction covers notification requirements for asbestos under federal and state law, proper asbestos spill response, asbestos emissions controls, proper asbestos disposal practices, and recognition of flaws in decontamination projects that could, inter alia, cause environmental contamination. Id. § 61.700(a), (b). Applicants for certification must pass written, practical, and oral examinations. Id. § 61.7100(a). Re-certification is necessary each year, id. § 61.720(c), and Alaska has discretion to revoke the certification of anyone who, inter alia, “is civilly fined or criminally convicted under the Clean Air Act.” Id. § 61.750.
II.
I turn first to the majority’s contention that the rule of lenity bars the application of § 3B1.3 to Rushing because the provision is ambiguous because it fails to “define what it means to hold a position of public trust.” Opinion at 34. I see no legal ambiguity1 in the Guideline or the application note 2 either facially or as applied to Rushing. Section 3B1.3 provides:
If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase [the offense level] by 2 levels. This adjustment may not be employed if an abuse of trust or skill is included in the base offense level or specific offense characteristic. If this adjustment is based upon an abuse of a position of trust, it may be employed in addition to an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role); if this adjustment is based solely on the use of a special skill, it may not be employed in addition to an adjustment under § 3B.1 (Aggravating Role).
Application note 1, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“Public or private trust” refers to a position of public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion. (ie., substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference). Persons holding such positions ordinarily are subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in nature. For this adjustment to apply, the position of public or private trust must have contributed in some significant way to facilitating the commission or concealment of the offense (e.g., by making the detection of the offense or the defendant’s responsibility for the offense more difficult). This adjustment, for example, applies in the case of an embezzlement of a client’s *1056funds by an attorney serving as a guardian, a bank executive’s fraudulent loan scheme, or the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the guise of an examination. This adjustment does not apply in the case of an embezzlement or theft by an ordinary bank teller or hotel clerk because such positions are not characterized by the above-described factors.
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 cmt. n. 1. To determine the meaning of a term in the Guidelines, we apply principles of statutory construction, and except in rare instances, we give terms their plain meaning.
The Guideline provides ample and sufficient guidance as to what “position of public trust” means. Application note 1 explains what positions might be positions of trust regardless of their public or private character. It does so by indicating a general hallmark of such positions (significant “professional or managerial” discretion) and gives non-exhaustive examples of positions that qualify for the enhancement. It also indicates two positions that do not qualify for the enhancement: ordinary bank tellers and hotel clerks. The application note, although it does not so specify, implies that the list of positions to which the enhancement does not apply is not exhaustive because the application of the enhancement is by reference to the factors delineated in the note and the Guideline.
The addition of the adjective “public” adds nothing legally ambiguous to the definition of “position of trust” in § 3B1.3. Under the usual canons of construction we give the adjective “public” its plain meaning: “of, relating to, or affecting the people as an organized community.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1836 (1993). Indeed, the majority implies that this is the correct understanding of the term “public” in the context of “positions of trust” when it holds (correctly, in my opinion) that the victims of Rushing’s violations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and obstruction charges are “the federal government ... and the public.”2 Opinion at 1049. Moreover, in this case, there is no legal ambiguity as applied to Rushing, because his position, as I explain below, qualifies clearly as a position of public trust under the approaches defined by our case law.
But even assuming that there is some ambiguity in the. Guideline, the Supreme Court requires more than mere debatable ambiguity for a court to conclude that a provision of federal criminal law is so ambiguous as to warrant application of the rule of lenity: The rule of lenity “is not applicable unless there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of the Act, such that even after a court has seizefd] everything from which aid can be derived, it is still left with an ambiguous statute.” Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 463, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991) (alteration in original, internal quotation marks and citations omitted). There is no such ambiguity here.3
III.
I turn now to the question of whether, under our case law, Rushing’s position qualifies as one of public trust. I conclude that the district court was correct to enhance Rushing’s sentence for an abuse of trust with respect to the public and the *1057government based on the factors we enunciated in United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502 (9th Cir.1990), and because the public relied on Rushing to take the proper steps to abate the asbestos threat to public health and to the environment at the Sitka pulp mill. See generally United States v. Foreman, 926 F.2d 792, 796 (9th Cir.1990) (considering public reliance).
A. The Hill Test
In Hill, we identified two indicia of whether a defendant enjoyed a position of trust sufficient to warrant an enhancement under § 3B1.3. We identified the pertinent questions as whether the defendant’s “position provides freedom to commit a difficult-to-detect wrong,” Hill, 915 F.2d at 506, and whether the defendant’s activities were easily observed. Id.; see also United States v. Cuff, 999 F.2d 1396, 1397 (9th Cir.1993).4 The plain rationale of Hill and its progeny is that “if one party is able to take criminal advantage of the relationship without fear of ready or quick notice by the second party, the second party has clearly placed a level of trust in the first.” Hill, 915 F.2d at 506.5 Thus, we embraced a pragmatic and fact-intensive inquiry under § 3B1.3 to determine whether an abuse of trust enhancement may be warranted. And we rejected an approach that elevates the form or designation of a defendant’s job title over the underlying facts that elucidate the defendant’s relationship to the criminal conduct and to the victim. Hill, 915 F.2d at 506.
In this case, Rushing had substantial discretion over how Technic Services and its employees complied with the requirements for asbestos safety in the Sitka pulp mill.6 The EPA did not directly monitor compliance with federal asbestos safety standards, but left substantial monitoring up to Technic Services and Rushing. Rushing’s activities at the pulp mill were relatively unobserved by the public and the government, which directly entrusted him with the day-to-day monitoring of asbestos levels. Thus, Rushing’s position satisfies the indicia of the Hill test.
Moreover, Rushing’s position plainly satisfied the Guidelines’ requirement that his position contribute to “making the detection of the offense or the defendant’s responsibility for the offense more difficult.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, cmt. n. 1. Rushing tampered with and caused his employees to tamper with the monitoring devices he was entrusted with overseeing. His interference with the use of the devices plainly made the crimes at issue here more difficult to detect. And, as the facts that were before the district court amply demonstrate, Rushing not only felt free to take criminal advantage of his position, but blatantly indulged that freedom. Thus, from the perspective of both the general public *1058in Alaska and the federal government, Rushing held a position of trust, and an enhancement pursuant to our precedents stemming from Hill was fully warranted.
B. Asbestos Licensing
The district court also would have been correct to enhance Rushing’s sentence pursuant to § 3B1.3 under a different rationale: that the public was entitled reasonably to rely on Rushing to see that the Sitka mill asbestos abatement was properly carried out because the State of Alaska requires all persons who do such work to be licensed to protect the health of individual workers and the public, and to prevent asbestos contamination of the environment. The record does not reveal whether Rushing held such a license as required by law. However, Rushing’s possession vel non of such a license is not material to the question of whether the position he held was one of public trust. The requirement that all individuals who abate asbestos hazards in Alaska be licensed and the attributes of the licensing scheme itself indicate that the public, in Alaska, places substantial trust in individuals who do such work.
In order to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, a state may require a license for activities that require special expertise. The principle is firmly rooted that such licenses indicate a public trust that the licensee will perform the licensed activity properly. See, e.g., Leduc v. Commonwealth, 421 Mass. 433, 657 N.E.2d 755 (1995) (noting that public trust is extended to holders of barber’s certificate of registration, medical licenses, or victualler’s license); Ulrich v. State ex rel. Bd. of Funeral Service, 289 Mont. 407, 961 P.2d 126 (1998) (holder of mortician’s license has position of public trust); Natelson v. Dep’t of Ins., 454 So.2d 31 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1984) (insurance license); see also 51 Am.Jur.2d § 17 (licenses protect the public health, safety and welfare where license law “extends the public trust only to those with proven qualifications” or “protects the public from incompetence and dishonesty in those who provide the licensed service”).
This principle applies most obviously to the learned professions, such as law or medicine. See, e.g., Ross v. New York State Dep’t of Health, 640 N.Y.S.2d 359, 226 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y.App. Div. 3 Dep’t. 1996) (medical license); Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Moore, 186 W.Va. 127, 411 S.E.2d 452 (1991) (license to practice law). But public trust is not confined to such professions, though if a licensed activity does not substantially affect public health, safety or welfare, courts are reluctant to infer that a licensing requirement indicates a public trust. See, e.g., State v. Notes, 1998 WL 754938 (Tenn.Crim.App. Oct.19, 1998) (possession of driver’s license does not support sentencing enhancement for abuse of public trust).
But the fact that certain licenses do not evidence a public trust does not logically or legally invalidate the conclusion that in Alaska, asbestos abatement may carry such a trust. Indeed, a number of factors strongly support the conclusion that asbestos abatement does carry a public trust. First, asbestos abatement is plainly an activity that materially and substantially affects public health, safety, and welfare, and the Alaskan public has a compelling interest in preventing harm to people and to the environment from asbestos. Second, a clear purpose of Alaska’s licensing requirement is to restrict abating and remedying asbestos hazards to trained individuals who have proven qualifications. And, third, the public is the beneficiary of the licensing requirement because it ensures that the public’s interest in health and the environment will be protected. This is precisely the kind of license that evidences a public trust.
The conclusion that Alaska’s licensing requirement indicates a public trust is con*1059sonant with the more general principle that a number of circuits, including this one, have adopted: the reasonable reliance of the public on individuals to comply with laws they are charged with enforcing may support the inference that a defendant enjoys a position of trust. See United States v. Gonzalez-Alvarez, 277 F.3d 73, 81 (1st Cir.2002); United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356, 372-73 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Robinson, 198 F.3d 973, 978 (D.C.Cir.2000); United States v. Turner, 102 F.3d 1350, 1360 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1162 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Foreman, 926 F.2d 792, 796 (9th Cir.1990). However, this case does not turn on the general principle of public reliance alone. Alaska’s licensing requirements provide concrete and persuasive indicia that asbestos abatement work is work that carries a public trust.
Moreover, the fact that an Alaska asbestos abatement license requires particular skills is no bar to an enhancement for abuse of trust here. The district court did not enhance Rushing’s sentence on the basis of the use of special skills.7 The majority therefore does not contend seriously that the district court impermissibly “double counted” when it enhanced Rushing’s sentence under § 3B1.3. The mere fact that an enhancement for use of special skills also might — or might not — have been an alternative basis for an enhancement has no logical bearing on whether the district court’s chosen basis was appropriate.
C. “More”
Finally, even if the majority were correct that an employee of a private firm, “without more,” Opinion at 30, may not hold a public trust, this case presents additional factors that establish that Rushing held such a trust.8 The EPA’s direct en-trustment of Rushing with monitoring asbestos levels at the pulp mill during Tech-nic Service’s work and Alaska’s licensing requirement indicate that Rushing was not merely an employee of a private contractor.
TV.
In essence, the majority concludes that a private contractor may not enjoy a position of public trust. The decision places the formalistic definition of Rushing’s job over the plain reality that he enjoyed a considerable public trust in performing a task that is critical to public health and safety and to the enduring well-being of a delicate environment. Our precedents require us to look through the designation of a defendant’s position to the defendant’s conduct in relation to the victim of his crimes, and in this case, I believe, our cases fully support Rushing’s sentencing enhancement. I would affirm the two-level enhancement applied by the district court.9
. Of course, any word in the English language may, in some sense, be considered ambiguous. However, such inherent "ambiguity” cannot be, and is not, the threshold for ambiguity that is legally material in the context of criminal law. See Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 463, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991).
. The majority’s position that we must consider the abuse of trust in this case from the perspective of the "public” as a victim, it should be noted, is inconsistent with its contention that the term "public trust” in the Guidelines is fatally ambiguous.
. The mere fact that the members of this panel disagree as to the proper reach of § 3B1.3 does not create an ambiguity so as to warrant the application of the rule of lenity. Otherwise, every judicial disagreement would warrant applying the rule.
.Contrary to the majority’s assertion that.our decision in Hill does not speak to abuses of public trust, I point out that we, and other courts of appeals, routinely have looked to the indicia identified in Hill in cases that involve abuses of public trust, see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 198 F.3d 973 (D.C.Cir.2000); United States v. Roberts, 185 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir.1999); United States v. Ajiboye, 961 F.2d 892 (9th Cir.1992), and I suggest merely that Hill provides an appropriate, if non-exclusive, framework for determining whether a public-trust enhancement is warranted.
. Because these factors must be assessed from the point of view of the victims (here, the public and the federal government), it is not material if knowledge of Rushing's activities was widespread among or easily observed by Technic Services' other employees.
. Of course, Rushing’s discretion was limited by the requirements of federal and state laws regulating asbestos removal and abatement. But all discretion is limited by law, and the fact of such limitation does not compel the conclusion that Rushing did not enjoy substantial discretion over his own and Technic Service’s compliance with the law.
.The special skills enhancement is meant to apply to defendants who use special skills in order to commit, facilitate, or conceal an offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. But Rushing did not use special skills for handling asbestos safely in order to commit the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act violations in this case. If anything, Rushing disregarded the information and skills required by Alaska’s licensing requirements, and that disregard is the gravamen of the complaint against him.
. I note that the majority provides no clue as to what might constitute the ''more” that, under its reasoning, might be required.
. The majority's decision to return this case to the district court to consider whether Rushing's sentence may be enhanced for abuse of a private trust is patently wrong. Public trust is what is at issue. The majority correctly recognizes that we examine whether there has been an abuse of trust from the perspec*1060tive of the public and the government. The trust at issue for the offenses of which Rushing was convicted is public, not private.