Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
A ruling will allow users and expert analysts to carry out repairs. But changes such as extracting and selling code would still breach copyright. Vehicle manufacturers opposed the move, saying repair garages could fix any issues. The ruling follows claims the right to modify software could have prevented the Volkswagen emissions scandal. The Library of Congress, which oversees the US Copyright Office, agreed with fair use advocates who argued that vehicle owners are entitled to modify their cars, which often involves altering software, Reuters reported. Manufacturers, including General Motors (GM) and NAME_1, spoke out in opposition. A GM representative referred to a statement from an industry group that said the new rules would weaken safety innovation. "Sensitive vehicle data could be easily manipulated, altered, or distributed - undetected - if these changes are implemented," the statement said. NAME_1 spokesman NAME_2 said the company stands by its earlier opposition. But

Summary:
1. Car owners in the US will be able to modify software on their vehicles without violating copyright laws, under new rules approved by the Library of Congress.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Provide response in all capital letters, no lowercase letters allowed.
user