I am not directly aware of a source that produces phrase structure rules for coordinate structures, but I can imagine a notation like the following:
NP --> NP, ... and NP
VP --> VP, ... and VP
In these rule, the three dots "..." represent an unspecified number of coordinate NPs or VPs, zero to very many. Note that the "and" is positioned immediately in front of the final NP or VP in the coordinate structure.
But Thomas Gross' answer and the comments above point to something more important about the question. If one is trying to capture the essence of coordination in natural language using traditional phrase structure rules, the attempt is going to fail miserably. Phrase structure rules as the are commonly understood do not begin to provide the theoretical apparatus necessary to shed light on the nature of coordination.
Perhaps above all, phrase structure rules alone cannot handle non-constituent conjuncts, e.g.
[Did he] or [did she] solve the problem?
Fred called [you yesterday] and [me today].
Does [he write] and [she read] the poems?
The coordinated strings marked by the brackets in these cases do not qualify as any recognizable unit of syntax in most theories, i.e. they are not VPs or NPs or ... To deal with such data, many theories have to introduce additional machinery, for instance they assume ellipsis in terms of conjunction reduction or right node raising).
Another problem for phrase structure rules is associated with conjuncts that are distinct in syntactic category as pointed out by Thomas Gross, e.g.
Sam is [conservative] and [a closet Republican].
Larry is [unhappy] and [trying to find a new job].
Jim called [last night] and [during class today].
The coordinated strings are distinct in syntactic category in these cases (Adj+NP, Adj+VP, NP+VP), hence an account of such cases in terms of phrase structure rules is quite at a loss; there are hardly any conceivable rules that could capture such coordinate structures. The notion of syntactic function is a more promising way to approach such data, i.e. the coordinated strings must be alike in syntactic function, as pointed out by Thomas Gross.
The greater point is that one is not going to get far with phrase structure rules as they are commonly understood. They are quite incapable of shedding light on the nature of coordination and many other areas of syntax. When it comes to coordination, I have worked on them extensively and would be happy to point to relevant literature that provides another means of analysis (and one that I think is much more promising than phrase structure rules), if anyone is interested.