Most Bibles have an Introduction which detail such points, particularly Study Bibles. Here is one example of some information given for the reasons governing whether to literally translate, or to transliterate words.
"Translation Philosophy and Methodology English Bible translations
tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The
first theory has been called ‘formal equivalence,’ 'literal,' or
'word-for-word' translation. According to this theory, the translator
attempts to render each word of the original language into English,
and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as
much as possible in translation.
The second theory has been called ‘dynamic equivalence,’ or
thought-for-thought' translation. In reality, ALL translations contain
a mixture of these two approaches. The goal of this translation theory
is to produce in English the closest natural equivalence of the
message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and
...The pure application of either of these translation philosophies
would create translations at opposite ends of the translation
spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these
two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be
unintelligible in English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence
translation would risk being unfaithful to the original." New Living
Translation - Introduction to the; p. A33, Tyndale House, second
There are five pages to this Introduction to the NLT, which says it is literal when the text is quite clear, but when there is an element of obscurity, it goes for the gist – the intended meaning – in words we can grasp today (which is a transliteration). There is one section on page A34 that gives examples of translation issues, but 'rules' are not spelled out. One transliteration example is putting Hebrew months of the year (from its lunar calendar) into equivalent English (solar) calendar months. Textual footnotes explain details and give the Hebrew names. On page A35 an explanation is given as to why they have sought to move away from the language of the male-oriented society of Bible times. In the New Testament, believers are called 'brothers' (adelphoi) but the claim is made in the Introduction that usually both male and female believers was meant, so they have translated that one word with three words: 'brothers and sisters'. Another example given is changing the literal 'breaking of bread' to 'the Lord's Supper'. But none of the words mentioned in the question are detailed.
Place and personal name-transliterations are explained in some detail in the NLT 'Introduction' but the best idea would be to read that up for one's self. The details and examples take up an entire column of small print on page A34.
There would be written 'rules' and general principles detailed for all the translators of each translation, but that is not something the public would be privy to. The NLT does publish a list of its Translation Team, but no 'rules'.
With all Bible Translations, only the translators would be given any rules that they would be expected to follow. Each translation committee would draw up their own regulations, according to their translation and theology philosophy.