---

Life is Complex

Nuveen makes things e-simple.

It only takes a minute to sign up for e-Reports. Once enrolled, you'll receive an e-mail as soon as your Nuveen Investments Fund information is ready—no more waiting for delivery by regular mail. Just click on the link within the e-mail to see the report and save it on your computer if you wish.

Free e-Reports right to your e-mail!

www.investordelivery.com
If you receive your Nuveen Fund dividends and statements from your financial advisor or brokerage account.

or

www.nuveen.com/accountaccess
If you receive your Nuveen Fund dividends and statements directly from Nuveen.

Table of Contents

Chairman's Letter to Shareholders

Dear Shareholders,

The financial markets saw an increase in volatility over the past year. Global economic growth has continued to look fragile, led by China's ongoing slowdown and stagnant growth in Europe and Japan. By contrast, the U.S. economy's modest recovery stayed on pace. However, concerns about downside risks to U.S. economic growth were heightened in early 2016 amid a weak global growth outlook and churning stock markets. In addition to the challenging economic backdrop, the persistent decline of oil prices and a rally in the U.S. dollar dampened U.S. corporate earnings growth, further contributing to an uncertain outlook.

For most of 2015, the U.S. Federal Reserve postponed the first increase to its main policy interest rate, which tended to boost risky assets and weigh on longer-term bond yields at points throughout the year. However, volatility rose in the late spring amid Greece's turbulent negotiations with its European Union creditors. Not soon after, China's stock market crashed amid worries about its decelerating economy and a loss of confidence in its policy makers. Conditions turned more favorable in the fall, as the Fed delayed its rate hike again in October, the European Central Bank appeared poised for further easing and China administered another round of stimulus measures. By the time the Fed announced the rate hike in December, the move was widely expected and had very little market impact.

Although volatility spiked in early 2016, conditions have generally improved since mid-February 2016. Global growth expectations remain subdued, but investors have gained more confidence that the Fed's interest rate increases will be gradual, oil prices appear more stable, the U.S. dollar has weakened and the U.S. economy continues to look fairly resilient. Consumer spending, which represents roughly two-thirds of the economy, continues to be supported by the meaningful improvement in the labor market, wage growth and cheaper gas prices.

The global markets may continue seeing bouts of market turbulence this year. While short-term volatility can be uncomfortable for investors, these periods can also provide opportunities. The experienced investment professionals working for you at Nuveen continue to seek upside potential and manage downside risks, whether markets are rising or falling. We also encourage you to contact your financial advisor, who can help you develop a plan to weather short-term price swings, while remaining consistent with your investment goals, time horizon and risk tolerance.

On behalf of the other members of the Nuveen Fund Board, we look forward to continuing to earn your trust in the months and years ahead.

Sincerely,

William J. Schneider
Chairman of the Board
April 25, 2016

Nuveen Arizona Premium Income Municipal Fund (NAZ)
Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUM)
Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUO)
Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund (NTX)

These Funds feature portfolio management by Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, an affiliate of Nuveen Investments, Inc. Portfolio managers Michael S. Hamilton and Daniel J. Close, CFA, review U.S. economic and municipal market conditions at the national and state levels, key investment strategies and the twelve-month performance of these four Nuveen Funds. Michael assumed portfolio management responsibility for NAZ in 2011, while Dan has managed NUM, NUO and NTX since 2007.

What factors affected the U.S. economy and the national municipal bond market during the twelve-month reporting period ended February 29, 2016?

The U.S. economy grew at an overall moderate pace during the twelve-month reporting period. Harsh winter weather and a West coast port strike weighed on growth in the first quarter of 2015, but those factors proved temporary. Rebounding economic activity in the second quarter was followed by a mediocre advance in the latter half of the year. Real gross domestic product (GDP), which is the value of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price changes, increased at an annual rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2015, as reported by the "third" estimate of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, down from 2.0% in the third quarter.

The labor and housing markets were among the bright spots in the economy during the reporting period, as both showed steady improvement. As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate fell to 4.9% in February 2016 from 5.5% in February 2015, and job gains averaged slightly above 200,000 per month for the past twelve months. The S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index, which covers all nine U.S. census divisions, recorded a 5.4% annual gain in January 2016 (most recent data available at the time this report was prepared). The 10-City and 20-City Composites reported year-over-year increases of 5.1% and 5.7%, respectively.

With GDP growth averaging around 2% for the previous four quarters, the U.S. economic recovery continued to underwhelm. Consumers, whose purchases comprise the largest component of the U.S. economy, benefited from lower gasoline prices and an improving jobs market. Pessimism about the economy's future and lackluster wage growth likely contributed to consumers' somewhat muted spending. The sharp decline in energy prices and tepid wage growth also weighed on inflation during this reporting period. The Consumer Price Index CPI rose 1.0% over the twelve-month period ended February 2016 on a seasonally adjusted basis, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The core CPI (which excludes food and energy) increased 2.3% during the same period, the largest twelve-month gain since May 2012 and slightly above the Fed's unofficial longer term inflation objective of 2.0%.

---

Certain statements in this report are forward-looking statements. Discussions of specific investments are for illustration only and are not intended as recommendations of individual investments. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are those of the portfolio managers as of the date of this report. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and the views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. The Funds disclaim any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein.

Bond insurance guarantees only the payment of principal and interest on the bond when due, and not the value of the bonds themselves, which will fluctuate with the bond market and the financial success of the issuer and the insurer. Insurance relates specifically to the bonds in the portfolio and not to the share prices of a Fund. No representation is made as to the insurers' ability to meet their commitments.

Refer to the Glossary of Terms Used in this Report for further definition of the terms used within this section.

Portfolio Managers' Comments (continued)

Business investment was also rather restrained. Corporate earnings growth slowed during 2015, reflecting an array of factors ranging from weakening demand amid sluggish U.S. and global growth to the impact of falling commodity prices and a strong U.S. dollar. Energy, materials and industrials companies were hit particularly hard by the downturn in natural resource prices, as well as the expectation of rising interest rates, which would make their debts more costly to service. With demand waning, companies, especially in the health care and technology sectors, looked to consolidations with rivals as a way to boost revenues. Merger and acquisition deals, both in the U.S. and globally, reached record levels in the calendar year 2015.

Although the current expansion continued to look subpar relative to past recoveries, the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) believed the economy was strong enough to begin the withdrawal of its stimulus policies. After winding down its bond buying program, known as quantitative easing, in October 2014, the Fed began telegraphing its intention to raise the target federal funds rate some time in 2015. The Fed had held the fed funds rate near zero since December 2008. However, the timing of its first rate hike was uncertain, particularly as the inflation rate stayed stubbornly low and signs of global economic weakness, notably from China, merited caution.

After delaying the rate change at each prior meeting in 2015, the Fed announced in December 2015 that it would raise its main policy interest rate by 0.25%. The news had a relatively muted impact on the financial markets, as the move was widely expected. Although the Fed continued to emphasize future rate increases would be gradual, uncertainties lingered. Given the fragility of the global economy and concerns about the U.S.'s lackluster growth, the Fed seemed more than likely to remain on hold in the near term. Not surprisingly, the Fed kept its target rate unchanged at its January policy meeting.

In the broad municipal bond market, yields ended the twelve-month reporting period slightly below where they started, although their downward path was not a straight line. For most of the period, the generally improved condition of the U.S. economy and expectation of rising interest rates propelled municipal bond yields higher. However, after the Fed's first rate hike, subsequent rate hikes seemed unlikely in the near future as the pace of the U.S. economic recovery remained below average and weakness lingered abroad, especially in Europe and China. This helped renew demand for municipal bonds, bolstering prices and weighing on yields (as bond prices and yields move in opposite directions) in the final months of the reporting period.

The municipal market's supply-demand balance was generally favorable over this reporting period. Issuance was unusually strong at the beginning of 2015, fueling concerns about potential oversupply conditions. Over the twelve months ended February 29, 2016, municipal bond issuance nationwide totaled $349.2 billion, an increase of 9.8% from the issuance for the twelve-month period ended February 28, 2015. To articulate, gross municipal bond nationwide issuance is up. The surge in gross issuance is due mostly to increased refunding deals as issuers have been actively and aggressively refunding their outstanding debt given the very low interest rate environment. In these transactions the issuers are issuing new bonds and taking the bond proceeds and redeeming (calling) old bonds. These refunding transactions have ranged from 40%-60% of total issuance over the past few years. Thus, the net issuance (all bonds issued less bonds redeemed) is actually much lower than the gross issuance. In fact, the total municipal bonds outstanding has actually declined in each of the past four calendar years. So, the gross is surging, but the net is not and this has been an overall positive technical factor on municipal bond investment performance.

At the same time, regulatory changes, increased risk aversion and expectations for rising interest rates have encouraged bond dealers, typically brokers and banks, to reduce the size of their inventories in recent years. By holding smaller amounts of bonds on their books, dealers seek to mitigate their exposure to bonds that could potentially be worth less or be more difficult to sell in the future. Banks have reduced their participation in the markets in order to hold fewer bonds on their balance sheets. As a result, there has been less liquidity in the marketplace, which contributed to periods of increased price volatility.

How were the economic and market environments in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio and Texas during the twelve-month reporting period ended February 29, 2016?

Arizona's economy continued its recovery overall after experiencing a severe housing market decline. Growth in leisure/hospitality has led to recent improvements in the state's employment picture. New home construction is building up steam as foreclosures have flattened to the national levels. Construction is also forecasted to strengthen substantially with the approval of a $2 billion, three-year

South Mountain Freeway Project connecting the East Valley and the West Valley. However, in the long term, Arizona is expected to outperform because of its strong population growth and investment in biotech, medical devices and health care. Gains in Arizona housing prices have been driven primarily by the Phoenix market, with the state's smaller metropolitan areas also showing progress. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Index, housing prices in Phoenix rose 6.1% over the twelve months ended January 2016 (most recent data available at the time this report was prepared), compared with a 4.9% price increase nationally. In the job market, the Arizona unemployment rate dropped to a preliminary 5.5% as of February 2016, the lowest level since April 2008. The Governor's Proposed Fiscal Year 2017 Budget totals $9.5 billion, up 3% over last year's enacted budget. The proposal focuses spending on the economy with money directed to education, public safety and health care initiatives to stimulate new jobs. The Arizona Supreme Court Ruled that the state did not provide inflation adjustments in school funding during Fiscal Years 2010-2013 as required under voter approved Proposition 301. As a result, the state legislature voted to put Proposition 123 on the May 17, 2016 ballot to settle a five-year lawsuit over school funding. The measure, if approved, would allocate $3.5 billion for education funding, of which $1.4 billion would come from the General Fund and the remaining $2 billion from increasing distributions from the state land trust permanent funds to education over the next 10 years. In May 2015, Moody's upgraded Arizona's issuer rating at Aa2 and changed its outlook for the state to stable with positive outlook. S&P also upgraded the State of Arizona's issuer credit rating to AA from AA- and revised its outlook to stable from positive on May 20, 2015. During the twelve months ended February 29, 2016, municipal issuance in Arizona totaled $6.1 billion, a gross issuance decrease of 10.6% from the twelve months ended February 28, 2015.

Michigan's economic recovery has strengthened over the last few years helping the state to reach the lowest level of unemployment in a decade. As of February 2016, Michigan's unemployment rate was 4.8%, down from 5.9% a year prior. Favorably, the state's labor force participation rate has remained stable as unemployment has improved, indicating a real improvement in employment. Auto manufacturing and health care hiring remained strong throughout 2015, providing the majority of job growth. To a large extent, the Michigan economy remained tied to events in the auto industry, as the "Big Three" (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) continued to rank among the state's five largest employers. Last year was the strongest for automotive sales since 2006, directly benefiting the state's economy. Overall, Michigan remained heavily reliant on manufacturing, which represented 13.8% of employment in the state, compared with 8.8% nationally. Following the peak in housing prices in mid-2006, home prices in Michigan declined dramatically and the inventory of foreclosed homes remained elevated in many of the state's hardest-hit metropolitan areas, including Detroit, Warren and Flint. Improvement in the state economy has brought some recuperation in the housing market. Last year home prices rose faster in Michigan than the national average. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Index of 20 major metropolitan areas, housing prices in Detroit rose 7.1% over the twelve months ended January 2016 (most recent data available at the time this report was prepared), above the national average increase of 5.4%. On the fiscal front, Michigan's budgetary performance over the last two years has been impressive. For fiscal year 2016 Michigan's $54.5 billion budget represents about a 3% spending increase over the prior year and includes additional funds for transportation, education and a $95 million contribution to the state's budget stabilization/rainy day reserve fund. State revenues have seen annual improvement since 2011 driven by income and sales tax growth. As revenues have improved, the state has demonstrated a commitment to rebuild reserves. By fiscal year end 2016, reserve balances are projected to be over $600 million, approximately 3% of operating revenues. Michigan's improved financial and cash position has positively eliminated the need for cash flow borrowing. The state's proposed budget for Fiscal 2017 is essentially flat. As of April 2016 (subsequent to the close of this reporting period), Moody's and S&P rated Michigan general obligation (GO) debt at Aa1 and AA-, respectively. Both maintain a stable outlook on the state. Moody's upgraded the state to Aa1 from Aa2 in July 2015. S&P revised their outlook from positive to stable in March 2016. During the twelve months ended February 29, 2016, municipal issuance in Michigan totaled $11 billion, a gross issuance increase of 0.2% from the twelve months ended February 28, 2015.

Ohio's economy has been growing at a moderate rate for the past two to three years. The state's unemployment rate was 4.9% in February 2016, matching the 4.9% for the national average. Overall, manufacturing and health care have been key components of Ohio's stabilized economy. Manufacturing is the largest of Ohio's major employment sectors and the state continues to be a leading producer of steel and autos. Like other manufacturing-heavy states, Ohio tends to have a somewhat more cyclical economy than the nation as a whole. The state has experienced a small boom in oil and gas production, due largely to hydraulic fracturing in the Utica shale field in the Appalachian Basin. The recent decline in natural gas prices has caused the number of active rotary rigs to fall

Portfolio Managers' Comments (continued)

sharply. According to the S&P/Case- Shiller Index, housing prices in Cleveland rose 2.9% over the twelve months ended January 2016 (most recent data available at the time this report was prepared), compared with a 5.4% price increase nationally. On the fiscal front, Ohio has seen revenue recovery in line with its economic recovery. Fiscal year-to-date (through January 2016) General Fund tax receipts are 5.4% higher than the prior year-to-date collections. Ohio's Fiscal Year 2016-2017 biennial budget was enacted in June 2015, with fiscal 2016 state tax receipts estimated at $22.2 billion, or 3.5% above fiscal 2015 actuals. Ohio funded its Budget Stabilization Fund in 2013 to its statutory maximum for the first time since 2000. The current balance in the state's Budget Stabilization Fund is $2 billion, which is 6.4% of prior year general fund revenues. As of March 2016 (subsequent to the close of this reporting period), Moody's and S&P rated Ohio general obligation (GO) debt at Aa1 and AA+, respectively, with stable outlooks. For the twelve months ended February 29, 2016, municipal issuance in Ohio totaled $9.8 billion, a decrease of 10.7% compared with the twelve months ended February 28, 2015.

Texas is starting to see weakness from a sustained period of low oil and gas prices since the state economy exhibits elevated exposure to the mining sector. As of February 2016, the state's 4.4% unemployment rate was flat compared to February 2015 and below the February 2016 national unemployment rate of 4.9%. State employment surpassed pre-recession levels in September 2011 and overall state employment growth continued in February 2016, but mining and logging and manufacturing sectors experienced year-over-year declines as of February 2016. The largest year-over-year employment gains were seen in transportation and utility, leisure and hospitality, and education and health services. Texas' three largest non-government employment sectors, education and health services, professional and business services, and retail trade, represented approximately 56% of state employment. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Index, housing prices in Dallas posted a year-over-year increase of 9.2% as of January 2016 (most recent data available at the time this report was prepared). On the fiscal front, the state is starting to see some weakness in tax collections and in October 2015 Texas Comptroller Glen Hegar lowered the state's 2016-17 biennium general revenue estimate by $2.6 billion (new projection $110.4 billion) based on sustained weakness in oil and gas prices. The state maintains a large Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF or rainy day fund) for use in times of declining revenues and as of January 31, 2016, the ESF totaled $9.6 billion or 8.7% of biennial forecasted revenues. S&P upgraded its Texas general obligation (GO) rating to AAA from AA+ in December 2013, while Moody's and Fitch rated Texas GO debt at Aaa and AAA, respectively. For the twelve months ended February 29, 2016, municipal issuance in Texas totaled $47.6 billion a 10.8% increase from the previous twelve months. For the most recent twelve months, Texas was ranked as the second largest state issuer only behind California.

What key strategies were used to manage these Funds during the twelve-month reporting period ended February 29, 2016?

The broad municipal bond market enjoyed positive performance during the twelve-month reporting period overall. In general, the municipal bonds of Arizona, Michigan and Ohio outperformed the national municipal bond market return during this reporting period, while Texas municipal bonds performed in line with the national market.

We continued to take a bottom-up approach to discovering sectors that appeared undervalued as well as individual credits that we believed had the potential to perform well over the long term. Our trading activity continued to focus on pursuing the Funds' investment objectives. Generally speaking, throughout this reporting period, the Funds maintained their overall positioning strategies in terms of duration and yield curve positioning, credit quality exposures and sector allocations. We've also continued to be more cautious in selecting individual securities. As investor demand for municipal securities has increased and created a slight supply-demand imbalance, we've started to see underwriters bring new issues to market that are structured with terms more favorable to the issuer and perhaps less advantageous to the investor than in the recent past. We believe this shift in the marketplace merits extra vigilance on our part to ensure that every credit considered for the portfolio offers adequate reward potential for the level of risk to the bondholder. In cases where our convictions have been less certain, we've sought compensation for the additional risk or have passed on the deal all together.

To keep the Funds fully invested, we continued to focus on purchasing bonds in areas of the market that we expected to perform well as the economy continued to improve. We emphasized intermediate and longer maturities, lower-rated credits and sectors offering higher yields. To fund these purchases, we generally reinvested the proceeds from called and maturing bonds. In some cases, we sold bonds that we believed had deteriorating fundamentals or could be traded for a better relative value, as well as selling short-dated, higher quality issues that we tend to hold over short timeframes as a source of liquidity.

Purchases in NAZ were mainly in bonds dated 15 years and longer from a range of sectors and subsectors including charter schools, utility systems, health care, excise tax revenue, waste water and airports. We also found selected opportunities in U.S. territory bonds, such as a Guam Water Works bond that we believe has positive credit fundamentals. We also began to replace the Fund's non-insured Virgin Islands credits with insured structures. The trading activity in our Virgin Islands exposure temporarily increased NAZ's weighting as of the end of this reporting period, but the weighting subsequently declined the following week, after the close of this reporting period, when we sold some more of the Fund's non-insured exposure. These territory bonds offered attractive yields with shorter durations, while maintaining tax exempt status in Arizona. NAZ's Puerto Rico exposure, however, was a different story. Given our concerns about the weakening fundamental outlook for the Commonwealth, we sold some Puerto Rico bonds during this reporting period.

In NUM and NUO, we bought a mix of intermediate- and long-dated bonds across a number of sectors, tapping opportunities in both the primary and secondary markets. All of our bond purchases in the Michigan, Ohio and Texas Funds represented in-state paper. In the Michigan Fund, we continued to try to diversify away from exposure to the City of Detroit and Wayne County, as well as sought to reinvest call proceeds. In the second half of the reporting period, we bought bonds issued for electric utilities, a tax increment financing district, dedicated tax, health care and a local general obligation (GO) bond. We also participated in a newly issued University of Michigan credit for NUM. The Texas Fund bought some dedicated tax bonds and shorter-dated state GOs, reinvesting the proceeds from called bonds and from selling a position in Austin Electric bonds.

Notable additions to the Ohio Fund in the second half of the period included a local GO issued for Dublin, Ohio, a Cleveland dedicated tax bond, a Northeast Ohio water and sewer credit, a Dayton International Airport bond and some state GOs issued for Ohio schools. To fund these purchases, we sold some of NUO's shorter-dated, higher quality bonds, as well as some lower coupon, longer-dated bonds that had performed well early in the period. Cash for new purchases also came from the proceeds of several called bonds during this reporting period.

In addition, earlier in the reporting period, we unwound a portfolio hedge in NUM, NUO and NTX that was managed with a credit default swap on the debt obligations of the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. These swaps had a negligible impact on performance for the full reporting period.

As of February 29, 2016, NAZ, NUM and NUO continued to use inverse floating rate securities. We employ inverse floaters for a variety of reasons, including duration management, income enhancement and total return enhancement.

How did the Funds perform for the twelve-month reporting period ended February 29, 2016?

The tables in each Fund's Performance Overview and Holding Summaries section of this report provide the Funds' total returns for the one-year, five-year and ten-year periods ended February 29, 2016. Each Fund's returns on common share net asset value (NAV) are compared with the performance of corresponding market index and Lipper classification average.

Portfolio Managers' Comments (continued)

For the twelve months ended February 29, 2016, the total returns on common share NAV for these four Funds outperformed the returns for their respective state's S&P Municipal Bond Index as well as that of the national S&P Municipal Bond Index. NUM and NUO outperformed the average return for the Lipper Other States Municipal Debt Funds Classification, while NAZ and NTX underper-formed this Lipper average. Shareholders should note that the performance of the Lipper Other States classification represents the overall average of returns for funds from ten states with a wide variety of municipal market conditions, making direct comparisons less meaningful.

The main contributor to the Funds' relative performance during this reporting period was yield curve and duration positioning. We continued to overweight the longer parts of the yield curve with corresponding underweights to the shorter end of the curve, which resulted in longer durations than the municipal market in general. This positioning was advantageous in this reporting period as intermediate- and longer-dated bonds generally outperformed shorter-dated bonds across all four states.

The Funds' credit quality exposures produced mixed results over this reporting period. For NAZ, overweight allocations to non-rated and BBB rated bonds added to relative performance but the gains were modestly offset by the Fund's exposure to the "other" category, which includes CCC rated and defaulted bonds. The "other" category detracted largely due to NAZ's position in an Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix bond issued for Brighter Choice Foundation Charter Middle Schools Projects for two charter schools, which was downgraded to a CCC rating when the school system's charter was not renewed and the schools shuttered in June 2015. We should note that the Brighter Choice position represents a small portion of NAZ's overall portfolio and the bond continued to make interest payments during this reporting period. We continue to monitor the situation as the bond proceeds through a debt workout plan. Ratings allocations in NUM and NUO were unfavorable to relative performance. The Michigan Fund was dampened by its underweight exposure to BBB rated bonds, a group which outperformed in Michigan during this reporting period, and its overweight exposure to AA rated bonds, a group which underperformed in the state. The Ohio Fund was hurt mainly by its underweight allocation in B rated credits. Within the Ohio municipal market, tobacco bonds dominate the B rated category, and the tobacco sector performed strongly over this reporting period. The Fund's tobacco sector limits preclude it from owning as much as the Ohio benchmark's weighting and therefore NUO holds an underweight allocation relative to the Ohio index. In NTX, an overweight to BBB rated credits was particularly beneficial to relative performance.

Sector allocations also resulted in different performance impacts for each Fund. NAZ's sector exposure was a relative detractor for performance, which was hampered by the dedicated tax (primarily due to Virgin Islands bonds), education (the previously noted Brighter Choice charter schools), industrial development revenue/pollution control revenue (IDR/PCR) and other revenue sectors. However, NAZ's pre-refunded/escrowed to maturity sector allocation somewhat aided performance, as bonds that were refunded during the period benefited from price appreciation, particularly those that were refunded to longer (five- to six-year) call structures. For NUM, the positive contribution from its health care allocation was offset by the negative effect of an overweight exposure to pre-refunded bonds, resulting in an overall neutral impact on relative performance. The Ohio Fund was helped by its sector strategy, largely due to an underweight in IDR/PCR bonds, a group which underperformed in the Ohio municipal market. NTX's overweight to the dedicated tax sector added value, as the sector outperformed in Texas, but an underweight to toll roads, another outperforming sector, detracted from relative results. Overall, NTX's sector allocations were a negative influence on relative performance for this reporting period.

Individual credit selection boosted relative performance for all four Funds during this reporting period. Generally, longer-dated credits were strong contributors to the Funds, particularly for NUM, NUO and NTX with allocations to zero coupon bonds, which typically have very long maturities. Bonds bought in June, July and August 2015, when yields were higher, also added relative gains. Additionally, the Arizona Fund benefited from some charter school holdings (with the exception of Brighter Choice, as discussed previously) and some advance refunded credits (as discussed earlier). NUM's selection in tobacco securities further bolstered its relative performance, while NUO gained from good-performing TOBs.

An Update Involving Puerto Rico

As noted in the Funds' previous shareholder reports, we continue to monitor situations in the broader municipal market for any impact on the Funds' holdings and performance: the ongoing economic problems of Puerto Rico is one such case. Puerto Rico's continued economic weakening, escalating debt service obligations, and long-standing inability to deliver a balanced budget led to multiple downgrades on its debt over the past two years. Puerto Rico has warned investors since 2014 that the island's debt burden may be unsustainable and the Commonwealth has been exploring various strategies to deal with this burden, including Chapter 9 bankruptcy, which is currently not available by law.

In terms of Puerto Rico holdings, shareholders should note that NUM, NUO and NTX had no exposure to Puerto Rico debt during this reporting period, while NAZ had an allocation of approximately 0.34%, for an asset-backed refunding bond. throughout the reporting period. The Puerto Rico credits offered higher yields, added diversification and triple exemption (i.e., exemption from most federal, state and local taxes). Puerto Rico general obligation debt is currently rated Caa2/CC/CC (below investment grade) by Moody's, S&P and Fitch, respectively, with negative outlooks.

.

Fund Leverage

IMPACT OF THE FUNDS' LEVERAGE STRATEGY ON PERFORMANCE

One important factor impacting the returns of the Funds relative to their comparative benchmarks was the Funds' use of leverage through their issuance of preferred shares and/or investments in inverse floating rate securities, which represent leveraged investments in underlying bonds. The Funds use leverage because our research has shown that, over time, leveraging provides opportunities for additional income, particularly in the recent market environment where short-term market rates are at or near historical lows, meaning that the short-term rates the Fund has been paying on its leveraging instruments have been much lower than the interest the Fund has been earning on its portfolio of long-term bonds that it has bought with the proceeds of that leverage. However, use of leverage also can expose the Fund to additional price volatility. When a Fund uses leverage, the Fund will experience a greater increase in its net asset value if the municipal bonds acquired through the use of leverage increase in value, but it will also experience a correspondingly larger decline in its net asset value if the bonds acquired through leverage decline in value, which will make the Fund's net asset value more volatile, and its total return performance more variable over time. In addition, income in levered funds will typically decrease in comparison to unlevered funds when short-term interest rates increase and increase when short-term interest rates decrease. Leverage had a positive impact on the performance of the Funds over this reporting period.

As of February 29, 2016, the Funds' percentages of leverage are shown in the accompanying table.

THE FUNDS' REGULATORY LEVERAGE

As of February 29, 2016, the Funds have issued and outstanding Institutional MuniFund Term Preferred (iMTP) Shares, Variable Rate MuniFund Term Preferred (VMTP) Shares and/or Variable Rate Demand Preferred (VRDP) Shares as shown in the accompanying table.

During the current reporting period, NTX refinanced all of its outstanding $70.92 million MuniFund Term Preferred (MTP) Shares with the proceeds from newly issued iMTP Shares.

Refer to Notes to Financial Statements, Note 4 – Fund Shares, Preferred Shares for further details on iMTP, MTP, VMTP and VRDP Shares and each Funds' respective transactions.

COMMON SHARE DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION

The following information regarding the Funds' distributions is current as of February 29, 2016. Each Fund's distribution levels may vary over time based on each Fund's investment activities and portfolio investment value changes.

During the current reporting period, each Fund's distributions to common shareholders were as shown in the accompanying table.

Each Fund in this report seeks to pay regular monthly dividends out of its net investment income at a rate that reflects its past and projected net income performance. To permit each Fund to maintain a more stable monthly dividend, the Fund may pay dividends at a rate that may be more or less than the amount of net income actually earned by the Fund during the period. If a Fund has cumulatively earned more than it has paid in dividends, it will hold the excess in reserve as undistributed net investment income (UNII) as part of the Fund's net asset value. Conversely, if a Fund has cumulatively paid in dividends more than it has earned, the excess will constitute a negative UNII that will likewise be reflected in the Fund's net asset value. Each Fund will, over time, pay all its net investment income as dividends to shareholders.

As of February 29, 2016, the Funds had positive UNII balances for tax purposes and positive UNII balances for financial reporting purposes.

All monthly dividends paid by each Fund during the current reporting period, were paid from net investment income. If a portion of the Fund's monthly distributions was sourced from or comprised of elements other than net investment income, including capital gains and/or a return of capital, shareholders would have received a notice to that effect. For financial reporting purposes, the composition and per share amounts of each Fund's dividends for the reporting period are presented in this report's Statement of Changes in Net Assets and Financial Highlights, respectively. For income tax purposes, distribution information for each Fund as of its most recent tax year end is presented in Note 6 – Income Tax Information within the Notes to Financial Statements of this report.

COMMON SHARE REPURCHASES

During August 2015, the Funds' Board of Trustees reauthorized an open-market share repurchase program, allowing each Fund to repurchase an aggregate of up to approximately 10% of its outstanding shares.

As of February 29, 2016, and since the inception of the Funds' repurchase programs, the Funds have cumulatively repurchased and retired common shares as shown in the accompanying table.

During the current reporting period, the following Fund repurchased and retired its common shares at a weighted average price per common share and a weighted average discount per common share as shown in the accompanying table.

OTHER COMMON SHARE INFORMATION

As of February 29, 2016, and during the current reporting period, the Funds' common share prices were trading at a premium/ (discount) to their common share NAVs as shown in the accompanying table.

Fund Shares are not guaranteed or endorsed by any bank or other insured depository institution, and are not federally insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Nuveen Arizona Premium Income Municipal Fund (NAZ)
Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUM)
Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund (NUO)
Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund (NTX)

Investing in closed-end funds involves risk; principal loss is possible. There is no guarantee the Fund's investment objectives will be achieved. Closed-end fund shares may frequently trade at a discount or premium to their net asset value. Debt or fixed income securities such as those held by the Fund, are subject to market risk, credit risk, interest rate risk, derivatives risk, liquidity risk, and income risk. As interest rates rise, bond prices fall. Leverage increases return volatility and magnifies the Fund's potential return and its risks; there is no guarantee a fund's leverage strategy will be successful. State concentration makes the Fund more susceptible to local adverse economic, political, or regulatory changes affecting municipal bond issuers. These and other risk considerations such as inverse floater risk and tax risk are described in more detail on the Fund's web page at www.nuveen.com/NAZ, www.nuveen.com/NUM, www.nuveen.com/NUO, www.nuveen.com/NTX.

Refer to the Glossary of Terms Used in this Report for further definition of the terms used within this section.

Average Annual Total Returns as of February 29, 2016

Past performance is not predictive of future results. Current performance may be higher or lower than the data shown. Returns do not reflect the deduction of taxes that shareholders may have to pay on Fund distributions or upon the sale of Fund shares. Returns at NAV are net of Fund expenses, and assume reinvestment of distributions. Comparative index and Lipper return information is provided for the Fund's shares at NAV only. Indexes and Lipper averages are not available for direct investment.

This data relates to the securities held in the Fund's portfolio of investments as of the end of the reporting period. It should not be construed as a measure of performance for the Fund itself. Holdings are subject to change.

Ratings shown are the highest rating given by one of the following national rating agencies: Standard & Poor's Group, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Fitch, Inc. Credit ratings are subject to change. AAA, AA, A and BBB are investment grade ratings; BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are below-investment grade ratings. Certain bonds backed by U.S. Government or agency securities are regarded as having an implied rating equal to the rating of such securities. Holdings designated N/R are not rated by these national rating agencies.

Refer to the Glossary of Terms Used in this Report for further definition of the terms used within this section.

Average Annual Total Returns as of February 29, 2016

Past performance is not predictive of future results. Current performance may be higher or lower than the data shown. Returns do not reflect the deduction of taxes that shareholders may have to pay on Fund distributions or upon the sale of Fund shares. Returns at NAV are net of Fund expenses, and assume reinvestment of distributions. Comparative index and Lipper return information is provided for the Fund's shares at NAV only. Indexes and Lipper averages are not available for direct investment.

This data relates to the securities held in the Fund's portfolio of investments as of the end of the reporting period. It should not be construed as a measure of performance for the Fund itself. Holdings are subject to change.

Ratings shown are the highest rating given by one of the following national rating agencies: Standard & Poor's Group, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Fitch, Inc. Credit ratings are subject to change. AAA, AA, A and BBB are investment grade ratings; BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are below-investment grade ratings. Certain bonds backed by U.S. Government or agency securities are regarded as having an implied rating equal to the rating of such securities. Holdings designated N/R are not rated by these national rating agencies.

Refer to the Glossary of Terms Used in this Report for further definition of the terms used within this section.

Average Annual Total Returns as of February 29, 2016

Past performance is not predictive of future results. Current performance may be higher or lower than the data shown. Returns do not reflect the deduction of taxes that shareholders may have to pay on Fund distributions or upon the sale of Fund shares. Returns at NAV are net of Fund expenses, and assume reinvestment of distributions. Comparative index and Lipper return information is provided for the Fund's shares at NAV only. Indexes and Lipper averages are not available for direct investment.

This data relates to the securities held in the Fund's portfolio of investments as of the end of the reporting period. It should not be construed as a measure of performance for the Fund itself. Holdings are subject to change.

Ratings shown are the highest rating given by one of the following national rating agencies: Standard & Poor's Group, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Fitch, Inc. Credit ratings are subject to change. AAA, AA, A and BBB are investment grade ratings; BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are below-investment grade ratings. Certain bonds backed by U.S. Government or agency securities are regarded as having an implied rating equal to the rating of such securities. Holdings designated N/R are not rated by these national rating agencies.

Refer to the Glossary of Terms Used in this Report for further definition of the terms used within this section.

Average Annual Total Returns as of February 29, 2016

Past performance is not predictive of future results. Current performance may be higher or lower than the data shown. Returns do not reflect the deduction of taxes that shareholders may have to pay on Fund distributions or upon the sale of Fund shares. Returns at NAV are net of Fund expenses, and assume reinvestment of distributions. Comparative index and Lipper return information is provided for the Fund's shares at NAV only. Indexes and Lipper averages are not available for direct investment.

This data relates to the securities held in the Fund's portfolio of investments as of the end of the reporting period. It should not be construed as a measure of performance for the Fund itself. Holdings are subject to change.

Ratings shown are the highest rating given by one of the following national rating agencies: Standard & Poor's Group, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Fitch, Inc. Credit ratings are subject to change. AAA, AA, A and BBB are investment grade ratings; BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are below-investment grade ratings. Certain bonds backed by U.S. Government or agency securities are regarded as having an implied rating equal to the rating of such securities. Holdings designated N/R are not rated by these national rating agencies.

The annual meeting of shareholders was held in the offices of Nuveen Investments on November 17, 2015 for NAZ, NUM, NUO and NTX; at this meeting the shareholders were asked to elect Board Members.

Shareholder Meeting Report (continued)

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of
Nuveen Arizona Premium Income Municipal Fund
Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund
Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund
Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statements of assets and liabilities, including the portfolios of investments, of Nuveen Arizona Premium Income Municipal Fund, Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund, Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund and Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund (the "Funds") as of February 29, 2016, and the related statements of operations for the year then ended, the statements of cash flows for the year then ended, and the statements of changes in net assets and the financial highlights for each of the years in the two-year period then ended. The financial highlights for the periods presented through February 28, 2014, were audited by other auditors whose report dated April 25, 2014, expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial highlights. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Funds' management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of February 29, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers or other appropriate auditing procedures. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Funds as of February 29, 2016, the results of their operations for the year then ended, their cash flows for the year then ended, and the changes in their net assets and the financial highlights for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Chicago, Illinois
April 27, 2016