I conclude (contrary to an earlier expression) that there is no such list, nor can there be, because the term "officer" is not well enough defined.
The inferior officers are those officers who are not principal officers (as specified in the Constitution, e.g. ambassadors, cabinet members, judges), since there are only two kinds of officers. There is no constitutional or statutory definition of "Officer of the United States", so we have to figure it out from case law. As noted in Morrison v. Olson 487 U.S. 654
The line between "inferior" and "principal" officers is one that is
far from clear, and the Framers provided little guidance into where it
should be drawn.
Officers of the US cannot be appointed by Congress (Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1 (1976), so that narrows down the possibilities – if in fact an appointment can be made by Congress, that is not an inferior office (since Congress has no such authority). That court also said that
We think that the term "Officers of the United States," as used in
Art. II, defined to include "all persons who can be said to hold an
office under the government" in United States v. Germaine, supra, is a
term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is
that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the
laws of the United States is an "Officer of the United States," and
must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by § 2, cl. 2,
of that Article.
To take a specific example, "special trial judges", authorized in 26 USC 7443a are an example of an officer. We know they are officers, because Freytag v. Commissioner 501 U.S. 868 says so (since they read Buckley):
A special trial judge is an "inferior Office[r]" whose appointment
must conform to the Appointments Clause. Such a judge acts as an
inferior officer who exercises independent authority in cases governed
by subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3). The fact that in subsection
(b)(4) cases he performs duties that may be performed by an employee
not subject to the Appointments Clause does not transform his status.
The Dept. of Justice offers an analysis of "Officer of the United States". The main elements in their opinion are that the position must possess delegated sovereign authority of the Federal government, and the position must be continuing. There are other criteria possibly applicable (things that were invokes at some time) including method of appointment, having been established by law, taking an oath of office, an emolument (not a volunteer), and receiving a commission. Still, Congress authorizes (by law) the hiring of federal employees, and not all employees are "officers".
An earlier memorandum on the topic is here. Footnote 54 notes that
It is at least arguable, however, that the authority
exercised by second lieutenants and ensigns is so limited and
subordinate that their analogues in the civil sphere clearly
would be employees.
Warrant officers and non-commisioned officers would likewise have quite limited authority.
Since the definition of "Officer of the United States" is up for grabs, there can't be a complete list of inferior officers, especially if all military officers are included. There is a long list of civilian officers under the executive branch published in United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, after each presidential election. The so-called Plum Book is on a government web page here in the 2012 version, and here for 2016. However, you will not find special trial judges of the tax court in the Plum Book, which were held in Freytag to be officers, and are civilians in the executive branch. The special trial judges are apparently listed here, as are the sitting judges (who are also not in the Plum book).