I don't get what you're doing for #2. I'm confused on the question I think. When it says "such that a is not divisible by 3, or such that a is divisible by 9".... If it was divisible by 9, it's divisible by 3. I don't get what's going on really in this question and how it relates to Euler's.
"Or" usually means "inclusive or" but in this case "inclusive or" and "exclusive or" lead to the same interpretation since "not divisible by 3" and "divisible by 9" are mutually exclusive. So we have two cases.
It's fairly standard procedure to break down moduli into prime powers; for example we might do this in order to later apply the Chinese Remainder Theorem.
So let and prove that in both cases we get the desired result.
All we want to show is that and to do so we show that and .
Case 1:
Then gcd(a,9)=1 and by Euler's theorem since eulerphi(9)=6.
Now either or . In the former case, we have . In the latter case we have gcd(a,7)=1 and eulerphi(7)=6 so as before .
Therefore in this case
Case 2:
Try it.