State highway and providing alternative access through a road other than the State highway. N.J.A.C. 16:47 — 4.33(d)(1). Thus, the regulatory action here was a modification and not a revocation. 4 While the State Highway Access Management Code contemplates a hearing in the Office of Administrative Law in the case of a revocation, N.J.A.C. 16:47-4.33(d)(1), there is no similar provision applicable to a modification. We have no occasion to pass upon the distinction this regulation draws between revocation and modification. 5 Most States generally recognize that regulation of access per se is noncompensable so long as the property retains a reasonable means of ingress and egress. See, e.g., Ark. State Highway Comm'n v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank, 231 Ark. 907, 333 S.W.2d 904, 912-13 (1960) (<HOLDING>); W.R. Assocs. of Norwalk v. Comm'r of Transp.,
holding that loss of business attributable to change in traffic flow is noncompensable holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business