The phrase "are interpreted to require" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are discussing how certain texts, laws, or statements are understood to impose obligations or conditions.
Example: "The regulations are interpreted to require all employees to complete safety training annually."
Alternatives: "are understood to mandate" or "are seen as necessitating".
Also, the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted to require states to cobble together majority-black voting districts wherever possible.
Previously, the rule could be interpreted to require that race officials provide proof that a musher intended to administer the prohibited substance.
Officials said the guidelines, which require the military to prepare concurrently for a major regional war, homeland defense, worldwide deployments and peacekeeping missions, could be interpreted to require a sizable increase in forces.
Capability to use coal or another alternate fuel shall not be interpreted to require any such powerplant to be immediately able to use coal or another alternate fuel as its primary energy source on its initial day of operation.
Those definitions do not make reference to the UNFCC, the Paris Agreement, or any other international standard, and have never been interpreted to require achievement of any such commitments.
Decisions of the body known as the Kimberley Process are supposed to be made by consensus, according to its "core document" — a standard that has been interpreted to require unanimity among participating countries.
All that the proponents — even the most radical among them — could hope for was that over time, attitudes toward racial differences would "evolve" and that the powerful words "equal protection of the laws" would eventually be interpreted to require public schools to be equal and not separate, instead of "separate but equal" as the Supreme Court had permitted in 1896.
5 The petitioners argue that § 2 of the Sherman Act should be interpreted to require proof of actual exclusion of competitors in order to show 'monopolization,' and they claim that only thus can a 'conspiracy to monopolize' trade be sufficiently differentiated from a 'conspiracy in restraint of' trade as to avoid subjecting the parties accused under those counts to double jeopardy.
7 ("No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"), it is difficult to see why it must be interpreted to require that private individuals be able to bring such claims against the States.
