We study numerically the maximal and minimal height distributions (MAHD, MIHD) of the nonlinear interface growth equations of second and fourth order and of related lattice models in two dimensions. MAHD and MIHD are different due to the asymmetry of the local height distribution, so that, in each class, the sign of the relevant nonlinear term determines which one of two universal curves is the MAHD and the MIHD. The average maximal and minimal heights scale as the average roughness, in contrast to Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) growth. All extreme height distributions, including the EW ones, have tails that cannot be fit by generalized Gumbel distributions. [1,2,3]. It has recent important applications in surface science, e. g. for modeling the evolution of corrosion damage at time scales not easily accessible to experiment [4]. In uncorrelated random variable sets, the statistics of the nth extrema is described by the Gumbel's first asymptotic distribution [1,5] if the probability density functions (PDF) of those sets decrease faster than a power law. However, deviations from this statistics are expected in fluctuating interfaces if there are strong correlation of local heights. In one dimension, this is the case of Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) interfaces (Brownian curves) [6,7] and other Gaussian interface models The second one is the scaling of the average maximal height, since EW interfaces showed an unanticipated scaling as the square of the average roughness [11], in contrast to several one-dimensional interfaces. This is essential to correlate surface roughness with the extreme events.The aim of this letter is to address those questions by performing a numerical study of 2 the MAHD and MIHD in the steady states of the KPZ and VLDS equations and of various lattice models belonging to those classes in 2 + 1 dimensions. We will show that, for each growth class, two universal distributions are obtained, which may be a MAHD or a MIHD of a given model depending on the sign of the coefficient of the relevant nonlinear term.Combination of data collapse and extrapolation of amplitude ratios (e. g. skewness and kurtosis) of those distributions are used to separate systems with coefficients of different signs. In order to illustrate the drastic effects that asymmetric PDF (i. e. distributions of local heights) may have on MAHD and MIHD, we will discuss their differences in a random deposition-erosion model on an inert flat substrate. We will also show that average maximal and minimal heights is all those models scale as the average roughness, as usually expected, which shows that the EW scaling is an exception [11]. Finally, we will show that KPZ, VLDS and EW distributions cannot be fit by generalized Gumbel distributions.MAHD and MIHD were calculated for the KPZ equation The difference between MAHD and MIHD can be easily explained in a model of random deposition and erosion with an inert flat substrate in the erosion-dominated regime. Let q > 1/2 be the probability of single-particle erosion and 1 − q of deposition, an...